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
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
1. What recent discussions she has had with Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive on increasing the level of exports from Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Secretary of State and I hold regular discussions with Executive Ministers on a range of issues impacting the Northern Ireland economy. I welcome the recent visits to Northern Ireland by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise and the Mayor of London to see at first hand the businesses and people who make the country’s strong export record a reality.
Chris White
I welcome the Government’s ambition to increase the number of companies in the UK that export by 100,000 by 2020. What steps are being taken, alongside the Executive, to ensure that Northern Ireland plays a major role in achieving that target?
Mr Wallace
As a consequence of both the Northern Ireland Executive’s efforts and this Government’s long-term economic plan, I am delighted to report that Northern Ireland’s exports have grown 4% over the year—higher than those of any other country in the United Kingdom.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland employs about 100,000 people. Will she assure us that she will work alongside Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to try to find new markets, which are essential to the agri-food sector, such as India, Mexico and Brazil?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of the agri-food business. Indeed, on Monday night my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Moy foods, one of the biggest employers in Northern Ireland. New markets around the world are key to growing the agri-food business, not only in the EU but in China and elsewhere. That is why I am delighted that in May the GREAT campaign to promote Britain and United Kingdom exports will be visiting Northern Ireland. I look forward to working with the Northern Ireland Executive to help that promotion to go from strength to strength.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State commit to commissioning research into the possible effects of leaving the EU on Northern Ireland’s exports and wider economy? Will she further commit to making a statement to the House on the economic effects on Northern Ireland of a UK withdrawal from the EU thereafter?
Mr Wallace
The Government are very clear that being in the EU makes us better off, stronger and safer. I do not think that we will be diverted by commissioning external reports about what may or may not happen. The United Kingdom knows exactly what being in the EU looks like, because we are in it now. The reforms that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has got will achieve that goal.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Earlier this week, a Cabinet Office report was published that stated that leaving the EU would result in the imposition of customs checks at the Irish border. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State accept the assessment of the Cabinet Office? What impact do the Government expect customs checks to have on Northern Irish exports to the south—and this is being positive?
Mr Wallace
Of course, as a member of the Government, I accept the Cabinet Office’s views. We should not forget that Ireland and the United Kingdom have a long-standing agreement, the common travel area, which would mean that certain barriers would not be in place. However, should we leave the European Union, we will be outside the customs union, and that will inevitably lead to some form of extra barriers to trade.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I do not know how the Minister keeps a straight face in some of his answers. It is no wonder that the Secretary of State is again avoiding answering these questions on the economy. Has the Minister discussed with Executive Ministers the survey by the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce, which showed that 81% of businesses in Northern Ireland support continued EU membership? Is it the case that there is little surprise in that finding, given that 60% of Northern Ireland’s exports—a higher percentage than in any other part of the UK—go to the EU?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discussed that with the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce at a reception on Monday night in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how I keep a straight face, let me tell him that I look across the Dispatch Box at two Labour Members who are in favour of replacing Trident, and I remember that their leader has no intention whatsoever of using it or replacing it. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I do not think that that is germane to the matter of exports from Northern Ireland.
Vernon Coaker
We are all amazed by the Minister’s response. That really was going to the bottom of the barrel to try to find something to say.
Building on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), has the Minister discussed with Ministers in the Executive the fact that more than a third of exports to the EU—well over £1 billion a year—go to the Republic? She referred to a report. The Government report was published today, and her remarks are supported by the Newry chamber of commerce. There are very real concerns about customs checks having to be put in place at the border, because that would be a border between the UK and the EU. I discussed that last night in Belfast with Nigel Farage. We had a big debate about it. Let me say to the Minister that it deserves a better answer than, “It’ll be all right on the night.”
Mr Wallace
I think I would rather have seen Adele last night, who is playing in Belfast, than Nigel Farage.
The United Kingdom Government believe that we are better off, stronger and safer if we stay in the EU. Of course we do not want barriers to further trade. We recognise the importance of trade across the border to the Republic of Ireland. I can say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are absolutely united in making sure that Northern Ireland business prospers and does the best it can, because this Government’s long-term economic plan will ensure that exports and domestic trade flourish.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
2. What steps the Government are taking to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The UK Government are supporting the fight against organised crime through the police funding delivered through the Northern Ireland block grant, the £25 million to tackle paramilitarism due to be provided under the fresh start agreement, and the work of bodies such as the National Crime Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The £160 million of additional security funding will support efforts on organised crime because of the involvement of terrorist groupings in that form of criminality.
Tom Tugendhat
In the fresh start agreement, the Executive committed to undertake a public awareness campaign to increase public understanding of the harm done to all communities by paramilitarism and organised crime. Given the impact that that has on businesses, will my right hon. Friend encourage the Executive to proceed quickly down that path?
Mrs Villiers
A theme that came out strongly from the fresh start talks was the need for a whole community approach to tackling the problems of paramilitarism in Northern Ireland in order not only to continue the excellent work of the police and their security partners, but to ensure that the public are well aware of the harm done by organised crime and are supported in their efforts to give the evidence necessary to bring individuals to justice and put them in prison, where they deserve to be.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Since the National Crime Agency has, at long last, become operational in Northern Ireland, what efforts have been made to seize the assets of those involved in organised crime and reinvest them in community projects in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
The NCA takes its duty to seize criminal assets very seriously. In that work, it will be assisted by the new joint agency taskforce on cross-jurisdictional crime, which will be established from April. It will consist not only of the NCA, Border Force, the immigration service and HMRC, but of the Irish Revenue Commissioners and the Criminal Assets Bureau. That will significantly enhance the excellent efforts already being made in Northern Ireland on these matters under the Organised Crime Task Force.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Fuel laundering and smuggling is part of organised crime. What recent assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the fuel marker that has recently been introduced, and is she convinced that it will be effective enough?
Mrs Villiers
The fuel marker Accutrace was introduced in April 2015. A six-month report on its use was deposited in the Library of the House in November. The review suggests that the new marker is having a very positive effect. It is too early to say whether the reductions are sustained and to establish causality, but the results are positive so far.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
With the number of police officers halving over the years, the number of groups involved in organised crime has more than doubled to 150, or possibly more. Does the Secretary of State see any significance in that?
Mrs Villiers
I would emphasise that Belfast, and Northern Ireland, is one of the safest places in the world. There is a significant problem with criminality related to paramilitarism and of course a lethal threat from terrorists, but the UK Government are absolutely determined to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the brilliant work it is doing. The PSNI is assisted by the very strong co-operation with An Garda Siochana in bringing to justice those who seek to exploit the border for criminal purposes.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
3. What discussions she has had with Ministers of the Irish Government on cross-border efforts to tackle organised crime.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
In December, I attended a trilateral cross-border ministerial meeting with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government. We agreed new measures to enhance law enforcement co-operation. A joint agency task force to tackle cross-jurisdictional organised crime has been created in line with the fresh start agreement.
Sir David Amess
While accepting that there are political uncertainties in the south as a result of the elections, does my right hon. Friend agree that the north and south face similar difficulties in combating crime, managing offenders and supporting victims, and that it is in everyone’s best interests that the Administrations of the north and south work closely together?
Mrs Villiers
I agree entirely. Security co-operation between the UK and Ireland is better than it ever has been. I believe that it is saving lives every day in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a stain on our efforts to frustrate cross-border crime that, after decades of fundraising for and running the Provisional IRA, it took the Irish Republic to secure an Al Capone-style conviction on Thomas “Slab” Murphy. Does that not highlight the fact that much more needs to be done to frustrate not only those who proliferate across the border, but those who support and fundraise for ongoing terror in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
The work that has been done by the Organised Crime Task Force and the PSNI over recent years in Northern Ireland is exceptional and very effective. I am convinced that the new strategy for paramilitaries in the fresh start agreement, in which the political parties went further than ever before in condemning paramilitary activity in the most forthright terms, and the cross-jurisdictional arrangements that were set up in the agreement will make Northern Ireland an even safer place than it is today.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products could lead to an increase in cross-border organised crime?
Mrs Villiers
It is hugely important that the police do all they can to tackle tobacco smuggling and I know that it is taken very seriously. It may be something that can be considered by the new joint agency task force on cross-border crime. It is a serious crime and those who buy illegal cigarettes are supporting and funding evil criminals who are involved in significant violence. It is not a victimless crime and I urge everyone to avoid purchasing such products.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
There was clearly a cross-border dimension to the horrific events of August 1998 in Omagh. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I, and I am sure the whole House, extend our profound sympathies to the friends and families of those who lost their lives on that terrible day. The Secretary of State has referred to cross-border co-operation and said that the relationship between An Garda Siochana and the PSNI is at an historic high. Will she commit, here and now, to bend every sinew to extend and solidify that relationship, because we must never, ever allow an intelligence breakdown to occur again?
Mrs Villiers
I can, of course, give the commitment that the UK Government and, I am sure, the Northern Ireland Executive will do everything in our power to enhance the co-operation between north and south, which is crucial. I associate myself with the comments of sympathy, support and condolence to the victims of one of the vilest atrocities that has ever taken place.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
4. What recent discussions she has had with Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I hold regular discussions with Executive and Government Ministers on a range of economic issues. Our long-term economic plan continues to deliver for Northern Ireland: the economy is growing, there are 46,000 more people in employment today than in 2010 and wages are up by more than 5% over the year.
Karl MᶜCartney
I welcome the recent news that 10,300 fewer people in Northern Ireland were claiming jobseeker’s allowance last month than in January 2015. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a clear indication that the economic pact is working?
Mrs Villiers
The economic pact that was signed between the Executive and the Government means that we are working more closely than ever before to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy and boost jobs. Unemployment is down by more than 40% from its peak in February 2013 and progress is being made towards implementing the devolution of corporation tax, which shows that working together between our two Administrations is effective in delivering for Northern Ireland.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I welcome the very good news on the economy in Northern Ireland, but in the light of the recent job losses in the manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland, with companies identifying high energy costs as one of the impediments to manufacturing growth, will the Secretary of State say what she is doing, along with the Executive, to tackle that issue?
Mrs Villiers
I have discussed that matter with the Executive and companies such as Michelin on many occasions, and I appreciate their concerns. It is also right to acknowledge the grave concern that people affected by redundancies at Bombardier will have. It is important to acknowledge that Bombardier is clear that that was part of a global restructuring, and that there was nothing that the Government or the Executive could have done to change its decision. However, it is also worth noting that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is strong and growing.
Mr Dodds
For our part, as leaders in the Northern Ireland Executive, we will continue to drive forward economic growth in conjunction with the Government here. Tourism is a major and important factor in driving that growth, and the Executive have invested heavily in, for example, Titantic Belfast and bringing major events to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State help us by reducing VAT on tourism and air passenger duty? That would really drive forward our region economically.
Mrs Villiers
The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, know that EU law constrains us from reducing VAT on those matters. However, I am committed to doing all I can to bring more tourists to Northern Ireland, which is a fabulous place to visit. In particular, the Executive’s investment in Titanic Belfast has been an outstanding success.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
13. I thank the Secretary of State for her answers so far. However, although she can speak eloquently, and we are all very pleased about the economic development that has taken place, does she agree about the need to work more closely with Northern Ireland MPs and the Executive to establish a much more robust economic strategy to regenerate the economy and stimulate job creation, rather than a series of disconnected policies?
Mrs Villiers
Closer working between Ministers and MPs is always desirable. The economic pact gives us a strong platform for doing that. We have brought the economic pact implementation into line with the process for implementing the fresh start and Stormont House agreements, and that gives even more scope for working closely with the hon. Gentleman’s party and others to ensure that the Northern Ireland economy thrives into the future.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
5. What steps she is taking to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive's financial position is sustainable.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Stormont House and fresh start agreements set out a number of measures to assist with the sustainability of the Executive’s finances. These include packages of financial support of around £2.5 billion, implementation of welfare reform, and measures to improve the efficiency of the public sector.
Stephen Timms
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a major threat to the sustainability of the Executive’s finances if her view prevails and the UK leaves the European Union?
Mrs Villiers
My colleague the Minister has stated the Government’s position on those matters. The Northern Ireland Executive’s finances are on a more stable footing than they have been for many years. As a result of the fresh start talks, we have settled a budget crisis that was threatening to collapse the institutions. The Labour party should support us in maintaining that financial sustainability.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on Northern Ireland’s financial position of leaving the European Union? What assessment have her civil servants made of it, and is she allowed to see it?
Mrs Villiers
The Government are publishing several documents setting out their position on the European Union. As I have said, we should welcome the dedicated work of the UK Government and the Northern Ireland political parties to settle a budget crisis that was threatening to collapse the institutions and a return to direct rule, which would have been a major setback.
Mr Speaker
The question was supposed to be about the financial position of the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Gentleman is, as he knows, a very cheeky chappie.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Federation of Small Businesses indicates that some 32,000 jobs will be created by the corporation tax provisions, which the fresh start agreement secured. Sixty per cent. of those jobs in Northern Ireland are in the small and medium-sized business sector. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses benefit from the corporation tax reduction?
Mrs Villiers
I have had many discussions over the years with the Executive and Invest NI on those matters. We believe that the devolution of corporation tax could have a hugely positive impact on the Northern Ireland economy, including for small businesses.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I declare an interest as a former consultant to a range of educational initiatives across all communities—
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
6. What discussions she has had with Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive on programmes to support the most disadvantaged children in Northern Ireland. [R]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
This Government are committed to improving the life chances of disadvantaged children by addressing worklessness and improving educational attainment. These are largely devolved issues in Northern Ireland, where the Executive have the powers to address child poverty in areas such as health, education, housing and childcare.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman does not need to declare his interest in the context of a question. In any case he has already done so, so he can bang on with his question.
Roger Mullin
Is the Minister aware of the Shankill children and young people’s zone in Belfast, a programme embedded in the community that aims to address generational disadvantage in the area? Is the Minister willing to meet the zone organisers and share the lessons being learned more widely?
Mr Wallace
Yes, I am aware of that organisation. I was on the Shankill yesterday visiting two business parks, the Argyle business centre and Duncairn Gardens, in that very sensitive part of north Belfast. I would be delighted to meet them, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to come along too, he would be welcome.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Does the Minister accept that the changes to the welfare system will mean even more disadvantaged children in Northern Ireland?
Mr Wallace
No, I do not accept that. The changes to the welfare system have proved that what we should do is make work pay. It is having a positive effect, as we see an increase in employment in Northern Ireland. More people and families are going out and securing a wage. That is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
7. What steps the Government are taking to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security services in tackling terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
10. What steps the Government are taking to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security services in tackling terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Keeping people safe from terrorism is one of the Government’s highest priorities. The PSNI and its security partners have our fullest support. Funding for the intelligence services will increase significantly over the course of this spending review. The PSNI will also receive an additional £160 million to combat the security threat. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House we are discussing terrorism in Northern Ireland. These are extremely serious matters and I hope Dr Offord will be heard.
Mrs Villiers
I agree that both the pledge of office and the fresh start agreement itself will be judged on implementation. Experience in Northern Ireland says that making a declaration or getting an agreement is only part of the journey. We are determined to see the fresh start agreement implemented in full. Implementation is going well, not least with the establishment of the panel to set out the strategy against paramilitarism.
Michael Ellis
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to recognise the tireless work of the PSNI and MI5, whose efforts continue to ensure that the vast majority of the people of the Province of Northern Ireland remain unaffected by dissident threats?
Mrs Villiers
I can certainly do that. They have our fullest support, as set out in the Conservative manifesto for Northern Ireland. Their courage and dedication is saving lives in Northern Ireland on a daily basis. They remain one of the main targets for attacks by dissident republican groupings, but they put their own safety on the line to defend the whole of the community.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
12. If, as the Secretary of State wants, we withdraw from the European Union, what assessment does she think the PSNI will make of the loss of the use of the European arrest warrant?
Mrs Villiers
The Government’s position on these matters is clear and has been set out in a number of documents published in recent days. What we are all agreed on is the essential nature of the co-operation on security matters between the UK and Ireland, and the crucial importance of that continuing, whatever the result of the referendum.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State do what she can to unite the community in support of the police against terror? Does she agree that that job would be made much easier if senior police officers, who this week took a decision to relocate memorials to murdered colleagues away from public-facing positions in police stations into back offices, reconsider that decision and relocate them, and ensure that the campaign against terror gets support right across the community?
Mrs Villiers
I will certainly reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the location of police memorials, but it is crucial to build support for the PSNI across the community. Support is at one of its highest ever levels and I welcome that fact.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
8. What steps the Government are taking to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government remain committed to working with the Executive and rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. The Government’s long-term economic plan is working and delivering for Northern Ireland: the economy is growing; there are 46,000 more people in employment than in 2010; and wages are up more than 5%.
Paula Sherriff
The Government recently set up an independent National Infrastructure Commission to ensure a long-term view on key infrastructure projects. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that the infrastructure commission is of benefit to the Northern Ireland economy, and can he name some specific infrastructure projects that it will undertake?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been in touch with Andrew Adonis to ensure that the commission is UK-wide. I am also delighted that, because of the efforts of the Government and the Northern Ireland parties through the fresh start agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive are well on their way to investing in new infrastructure for Northern Ireland, including hopefully work on the A5, the M2, and the A6 up to Derry, and Northern Ireland will get a 21st century road network that will improve economic development.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Patricia Gibson
Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the UK Government intended to take £7 billion from Scotland over a decade through the fiscal framework? Will he take this opportunity today to explain why that was the case?
The Prime Minister
Only the SNP could try to maintain a grievance after a settlement has been put in place. We have built a powerhouse Parliament for Scotland that will have more powers, more ability to set tax rates, more ability to determine benefits for its citizens. Now it is time for the SNP to stop talking about grievances and get on with government.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Q2. The Csa Group in my constituency has recently taken on six new apprentices, and across South Ribble we have had more than 1,000 apprenticeship starts since 2014. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this suggests that the Government should stick with their plans so that even more companies have the opportunity to take on apprentices?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have this very stretching target for 3 million apprentices to be trained during this Parliament. We will do our bit by funding those programmes. We want business to do its part by contributing to the apprenticeship levy, but we need small businesses such as Csa in my hon. Friend’s constituency and, indeed, the public sector to get fully involved in training apprentices to give young people the chance to earn and learn at the same time.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
It is three years since the Government announced a policy of tax-free childcare. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the hold-up is?
The Prime Minister
We are introducing the tax-free childcare, along with the 30 hours of childcare, for everyone with three and four-year-olds, with a £6 billion commitment. The start of the 30 hours will come in through a pilot scheme this year.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Treasury website describes it as a “long-term plan”. Well, it is certainly that, because it was announced in 2013 and is apparently not going to be introduced until next year. Why is the Prime Minister’s promise of 30 hours free childcare for three and four-year-olds not available for one in three working parents who want their children to be cared for in a pre-school?
The Prime Minister
First, on tax relief on childcare, we lost a court case against some of the existing providers, so there was a delay. The tax-free childcare will come in in 2017. As for the 30 hours, as I have said, there will be some pilot schemes this year and full implementation next year, which is in line with what we said in our manifesto. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is helping me to promote Government policy. When I became Prime Minister, of course, I think we had only 10 hours of childcare; then it went up to 12, then 15 and now to 30. Those are the sort of things you can do if you have a strong economy with a sound plan. If you are getting your deficit down and your economy is growing, you are able to do all those things. I am glad that we are able to talk about them.
Jeremy Corbyn
A National Audit Office report published today confirms that one third of the families who were promised 30 hours of free childcare will now not receive it. That is a broken promise. The report also warns that many childcare providers are not offering the new entitlement owing to insufficient funding. As a result, 41,000 three-year-olds are missing out on free early education. Will the Prime Minister intervene, and ensure that those children are given the start in life that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
We want all those children to have the start in life that they deserve. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the National Audit Office report. Let me read to him some of the things that it says. For instance, it says:
“The Department has successfully implemented the entitlement to free childcare for 3- and 4-year-olds, with almost universal take-up of hours offered to parents.”
I think that we should be congratulating the Secretary of State. It also says:
“The Department has made significant progress in providing free entitlement to early years childcare… parents and children are clearly benefiting from these entitlements… Stakeholders are…positive about increasing the entitlement to 30 hours”.
We are able to do all those things because we have a strong and sound economy. What a contrast it would be if we listened to the right hon. Gentleman. Because I regularly subscribe to the Islington Tribune, I can announce to the House that his latest economic adviser is one Mr Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek Finance Minister who left his economy in ruins. That is Labour’s policy in two words: Acropolis Now.
Jeremy Corbyn
That is not much help to the 41,000 children who are not benefiting from what they were promised by the Government.
Let us look further on in the educational life of children. According to the Government’s own figures, half a million children in primary schools are in classes of more than 31, and 15,000 are in classes of more than 40. We are all aware of the importance of both pre-school and early-years education to giving all our children a decent start in life, yet half a million are living in poverty, and many are in oversized classes. Is it not time for a serious Government intervention to sort this problem out?
The Prime Minister
Let me bring the right hon. Gentleman up to date with the figures relating to all those areas.
Introducing the extra hours of childcare is obviously a huge operation for the childcare providers, but although the National Audit Office report said that only 58% of disadvantaged two-year-olds were accessing the free childcare offer, the latest information shows that over 70% are doing so.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of teachers, and overcrowded classes. There are 13,100 more teachers than there were in 2010, because we have invested in Teach First and in bursaries, and we have made sure that teaching is a worthwhile career. As for school places, I want to answer the right hon. Gentleman, because there are actually 453 fewer schools that are full or over capacity than there were in 2010—so that is progress—and there are 36,500 fewer pupils in overcrowded schools.
Why have we been able to do that? We have protected education funding. We have protected the money that followed every pupil into a school. We introduced the pupil premium, and that was the first time that any Government had recognised the extra needs of children from the poorest backgrounds. We have done all that, so our school system is growing, there are more places, and there are fewer overcrowded schools—all because we have a strong economy and the right values in place.
Jeremy Corbyn
The problem is that class sizes are growing. The problem is that there is a crisis of teacher shortages as well. I have been talking to many teachers, as, I am sure, have the Prime Minister and others. I have a question from one, Tom, who says:
“I have been teaching for 10 years, and am currently head of D&T”
—design and technology—
“at a successful secondary school. With increasing numbers of teachers leaving the profession, will the government now accept that there is a crisis in recruitment and retention?”
Will the Government accept that there is that crisis in this crucial profession?
The Prime Minister
I have just given the right hon. Gentleman the figures. There are 13,000 more teachers in our schools than there were when I became Prime Minister. However, if he is worried about teacher recruitment, perhaps he can explain this. His party proposes to put up the basic rate of tax, starting in Scotland. How will that help? It means that classroom teachers, nursery teachers and secondary teachers will all pay more tax. What we are doing is helping teachers by saying, “You can earn £11,000 before you pay any income tax at all.” I do not think that recruiting teachers is simply about money—it is also about having a good school system, which we have in our country—but it certainly will not help if we listen to Labour and put up people’s taxes.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister seems to be in a bit of denial here. Ofsted and the National Audit Office have confirmed that there is a shortage and a crisis of teachers. Ensuring that there are enough excellent teachers in our schools is obviously fundamental to the life chances of children. When 70% of headteachers have warned that they are now having to use agency staff to staff their classrooms, is it not time that the Government intervened and looked at the real cost of this, which is the damage to children’s education and the £1.3 billion spent last year on agency teachers? We have this agency working situation in the national health service and also in education. Are we not moving into an era that we could term “agency Britain”?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has to look at the facts, rather than talking down the people who are working so hard to teach children in our schools. The facts are these: our teachers are better qualified than ever, with a record 96.6% of teachers in state-funded schools now having a degree or higher qualification. Those are the facts. On those going into teaching, Teach First is the most popular destination for Oxbridge graduates—something that never happened under a Labour Government. If you want to encourage people to go into teaching, you have to know that you have a good school system with more academies, more free schools and higher qualifications, and make sure that we have rigour and discipline in our classrooms, all of which has improved. All of that is possible only if you have a strong and growing economy to fund the schools that our children need.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Q3. Fiddlers Ferry in my constituency is one of several UK power stations announcing closure this year. However, Germany and Holland, both of whose carbon emissions are higher than ours, are building brand new mega-coal power stations from which we will be importing coal. It is hard for me to explain the logic of this to my constituents. Could the Prime Minister review the pace of our closure programme, particularly in the context of next year’s energy crunch?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important question and he is right to say that there is big change in this industry. We want to see an increase in gas capacity and in renewables capacity, and of course the restarting of our nuclear programme, which I hope to be discussing with the French President this week. My hon. Friend is also right to say that security of supply must be our No. 1 priority, and that is why we have announced that we are going to bring forward the capacity market to provide an extra boost to existing stations, and this could indeed help Fiddlers Ferry itself. I would say to him and to everyone across the House that all these decisions we take about energy have consequences for people’s bills. He mentioned Germany, but German electricity prices are 40% higher than those of the UK; the level of subsidy makes up about 30% of German bills. Ours is less than half that level, and I think we have to think through these decisions and their consequences for energy consumers.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
We all have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age, gender, sex, sexual orientation, disability or ethnicity. Parents have rights to maternity and paternity leave entitlement. Workers have the right to paid holidays and the right to work for no more than 48 hours each week. All those rights are guaranteed through the European Union. Does the Prime Minister agree that there are huge social benefits from being members of the European Union?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make is that in recent years what we have done, including under this Government, is to add to the rights that people have, including maternity and paternity rights. The emphasis in Europe now needs to be on making sure that we expand our single market and make it more successful for our businesses, recognising that social benefits matter as well, but principally I believe that they are a matter for this House.
Angus Robertson
Millions of UK citizens live elsewhere in the European Union. European decisions have helped the environment by reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by nine tenths. Relations between the 28 EU member states are often imperfect but they are maintained through dialogue and agreement, which surely is a huge improvement on the confrontations and wars of the past. Will the Prime Minister concentrate on the positive arguments for EU membership and reject the approach of “Project Fear”?
The Prime Minister
My arguments about being stronger in the reformed European Union, safer in the reformed European Union and better off in the reformed European Union are all positive arguments. I would add to that the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, which is that things such as pollution cross borders and so it makes sense to work together. The fundamental point he makes is one worth thinking about. He and I are both post-war children, but we should never forget, when we sit around that table, that just 70 years ago these countries were murdering each other on the continent of Europe. For all the frustrations of this institution, and, believe me, there are many, we should never forget that fact—the fact that we talk, the fact that we work together and the fact that we resolve our disputes around that table.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Q7. Those who foster children deserve our full support. To mark fostering February, last Friday I visited Jay Fostering in my constituency, which since its establishment in 2003 has helped more than 1,250 children to find a loving and caring home. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the team at Jay Fostering, as well as the carers? Will he also agree to look into how the currently complex funding arrangements for over-18s could be considerably simplified to ease the transition of children into adulthood?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which we started to address in the last Parliament because 18-year-olds were almost being automatically ejected from foster parent homes. We all know, as parents, that it is very important to give people the support they need. That is why we changed the law in the last Parliament so that local authorities are under a duty to support young people who choose to remain with their foster carers beyond the age of 18. We have put in place the “staying put” arrangement, we are providing £44 million over three years, and in the first year of its roll-out almost half those eligible to stay put have decided to do so. This is a real advance in our fostering arrangements.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Q4. As this is my first ever question to the Prime Minister, I do hope that my suit and tie match his mother’s high expectations. In September last year, 16-year-old Mohammed Dura-Ray was stabbed to death in my constituency. His mother Mariama discovered last week that the Crown Prosecution Service will not be prosecuting the man arrested for his murder. Sadly, she joins the 84% of people in Southwark who experienced knife crime last year who have seen no one held to account. The Home Office blames local police for that low prosecution rate, and I resent the accusation that my local police are not up to the job. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that my local police have the resources to investigate knife crime fully and bring more killers to justice?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman uses his first question to raise an incredibly important issue: knife crime in our country. The good news is that knife crime has come down by about 14% since 2010, but he makes an important point about the level of prosecutions. Last year there were some 11,000 prosecutions, and the rate of prosecution is similar to that for other areas, but clearly everything we can do to help the police and help the CPS to increase the rate of prosecution is wholly worth while. We need to give the police the resources they need—and we are, through the spending round; we need to educate young people on the dangers of knife crime, and we need to make sure that those who commit these crimes are properly punished.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Bernard Jenkin. [Interruption.] Where is the fellow? He is not here. We shall hear from someone who is here. I call Mr David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
For five or six years—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I know the House is in a state of some perturbation but we must hear from the right hon. Gentleman. When he has composed himself, we will hear from him.
Mr Davis
Thank you, Mr Speaker. For five or six years, the number of national insurance numbers issued to EU migrants has been hundreds of thousands higher than the official immigration figures. That implies that the official immigration figures may be a dramatic underestimate. We can know the truth of the matter only if Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs releases its data on active EU national insurance numbers, but HMRC has refused to do so. Will the Prime Minister instruct HMRC to release those statistics immediately so that we can understand the truth about European Union immigration?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that we have the single transferable question, if not the single transferable vote! It is very good to hear from my right hon. Friend. The reason why the numbers do not tally is that a person can get a national insurance number for a very short-term visit, and people who are already here but without a national insurance number can apply for one, so the numbers are quite complex. HMRC has given greater information, and I will ensure that that continues to be the case.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Q5. The proposed changes to Sunday trading are causing great concern to many retailers, shop workers, their families, faith groups and all who want to keep Sunday special, yet before the election the Prime Minister said that he had no plans to change Sunday trading laws. When did he change his mind, or was it always his plan to scrap this great British compromise as soon as the election was safely out of the way?
The Prime Minister
I thought it was right to bring forward these proposals because they are genuinely new proposals—new in that we are devolving to local authorities the ability to make that decision. Secondly, and crucially—I am sure that Opposition Members will be interested in this—we will be introducing new protections not only for new workers on Sundays, but for all workers on Sundays. The House should look carefully at this idea not least because our constituents are able to shop online all day, every day, including on Sunday. All the evidence shows that these proposals will be welcomed by customers and will create more jobs. We have nothing to be scared of in moving into this new arrangement.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Q9. At the weekend, I visited a young enterprise trade fair where teams from across local Staffordshire schools, including Rugeley sixth-form academy, were showcasing their entrepreneurial skills. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing good luck to all the teams, and does he agree that initiatives such this are key to inspiring the next generation of entrepreneurs?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that for years not enough was done in our schools to encourage enterprise and entrepreneurship. When we know that so many of the jobs of the future will come from start-up businesses, small businesses and rapidly growing start-ups, it is absolutely right that we should be promoting enterprise in our schools, not only through teaching but through exercises and enabling young people to start businesses by giving them small grants.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Q6. Yesterday, Five-Quarter Energy, a north-east small and medium-sized enterprise, ceased to trade. Its goal was the extraction of gas from coal deep under the North sea. The Government failed to provide a supporting statement to secure foreign direct investment owing to their inability to comprehend that underground coal gasification would not only secure our energy supply but provide feedstocks to grow our industries, and that all that would be totally decarbonised. Will the Prime Minister look into that appalling loss of opportunity and urgently change course and develop a meaningful industrial energy strategy that British industry, workers and the planet so badly need?
The Prime Minister
I shall certainly look at the case the hon. Gentleman raises, because we back all energy projects that can create jobs and growth in our country, and we have a very active industrial strategy for that. I know that he is disappointed about our decision on carbon capture and storage, but I say to him that that is an extra £1 billion capital investment, and even after that there is no sign yet that carbon capture and storage can be even close to competitive with nuclear power or offshore wind. None the less, I will look carefully at the case that he mentions.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Q11. A very large proportion of the fish caught by British vessels and landed in the UK are exported to Europe, mainly to EU countries, and, under reforms that were led by the British Government, a great many of our fishermen fish in the sovereign waters of other European Union countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our seas, those that exploit them, and the communities that they support are better off in a reformed European Union?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to him for the huge amount of work he did to reform the common fisheries policy from what was a very poor policy to one that is now working much better for our fishermen. When it comes to fishing and farming, the key issue will be ensuring that Europe’s markets remain open to the produce that we land and grow. That will be vital to the debate that we have in the months ahead.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q10. When more than 1,600 families are on York’s housing waiting list; when care workers are forced to leave the city owing to the cost of renting, thereby delaying hospital discharges; when young families are placed in a single room in homeless hostels; and when supported housing schemes will have to close because of benefit changes, can the Prime Minister specifically state why up to 2,500 predominantly high-value homes are being planned for development on public land in York central, without a single home being built for social rent?
The Prime Minister
The decisions made in York about planning are for York City Council and the local plan. One of the things that we did in the previous Parliament, which was specifically designed to help York, was to alter the change of use provisions so that empty offices could be used to build flats and houses for local people, which is happening in York and will help to make sure that that city continues to thrive.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Q12. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and my constituent William Laurie, a brilliant young farmer whose business has been put at risk because the Rural Payments Agency has not paid his basic payment scheme money? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the figures that the RPA keeps putting out are fictional, or does he agree with his Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that it is the European Commission’s fault for making the common agricultural policy so complicated?
The Prime Minister
The system is complicated, and we need to make sure that the Rural Payments Agency does the very best that it can. To date 70,000 farmers have received their 2015 payments, which is 81% of all claims paid, but there is always room for improvement. Indeed, we should look at all the devolved areas of the United Kingdom to see how they are coping with the problem, but more broadly it is very important that we maintain the access that our farmers have without tariff, without tax, without quota, to produce the cleanest and best food anywhere in the world and export it unhindered to 500 million people in the European single market.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Yesterday the chair of the board of the International Campaign for Tibet, Mr Richard Gere, came to the House of Commons to meet Members of Parliament as well as you, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister follow the example set by the United States, Canada, Germany and Japan and write to the Chinese authorities to express his concerns about the oppressive counter-terrorism laws introduced in Tibet?
The Prime Minister
I was not aware of the visit by Richard Gere. I will look closely at what he said and perhaps get back to the right hon. Lady about the issues he raises.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Q13. In 2004 the 16-year-old son of my constituent Lorraine Fraser was murdered by a gang, and the conviction of four of them was secured through joint enterprise. The recent ruling in the Supreme Court has caused Lorraine and many other victims’ families a great deal of anxiety. Will my right hon. Friend agree to facilitate a meeting to enable these families to discuss their concerns with Ministers and understand what the ruling might mean in cases such as theirs?
The Prime Minister
Through my hon. Friend, may I extend my sympathy to his constituents? He is right—we should begin by remembering the families of all those who have lost loved ones to dreadful crimes and who are worried about that judgment and what it might mean for them. I am very happy to facilitate a meeting between him and one of the Justice Ministers to discuss it. I think we should be clear that that judgment referred only to a narrow category of joint enterprise cases, and it would be wrong to suggest that everyone convicted under the wider law on joint enterprise will have grounds for appeal. It is very important that that message goes out, but I will fix the meeting that my hon. Friend calls for.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
People in the midlands are furious to learn that the Government have awarded a contract to make British medals to some French company. Imagine opening your Distinguished Service Order or your CBE to find “Fabriqué en France” on it. I have visited midlands medal manufacturers in Birmingham’s jewellery quarter, and they are the best in the world. The Prime Minister should go back to Downing Street, call in the Cabinet Office Minister and get this scandal sorted out.
The Prime Minister
The only point I would make is that I am sure that all those in the Royal Mint in Wales would want to contest that claim and argue that they make the final medals in the United Kingdom. I am sure the competition between them and Birmingham is intense. I will certainly take away what the hon. Gentleman says. I was not aware of the issue, but where we can make something in Britain, we should make it in Britain.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
Q14. A recent investigation by my local newspaper, the Derby Telegraph, uncovered reports of alleged experiments carried out on children by medics at a medical facility in Derbyshire during the ’60s and ’70s. Will the Prime Minister ensure that a thorough investigation is now undertaken?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. She is absolutely right to raise this matter; they are very serious allegations and it is vital that the full facts are considered. My understanding is that the police, the local authority and the NHS are working together and that there is an inquiry process under the Derby Safeguarding Children Board, in line with is procedures. I encourage anyone who knows anything about this to come forward and give their evidence to the board.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Syrian ceasefire is extremely fragile. There are reports that Russia is continuing to attack anti-Assad rebels, not Daesh, and that Islamic terrorists and weapons continue to pass into Syria across the Turkish border. What are the British Government doing to ensure that the ceasefire is properly monitored and, in particular, to reduce serious tensions between Russia and our NATO ally Turkey?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this matter. The cessation of hostilities is an important step forward, imperfect though it is, and it does enable the possibility of political negotiations starting next week. She asked specifically what we are doing to try to ensure that it is properly enforced. We are working with the Americans and the Russians to make that happen—I have a European conference call with Vladimir Putin later this week to reinforce these points. Even though the ceasefire is imperfect, the fact that we have it is progress. Not every group is included in the ceasefire, but basically we are not seeing the attacks that were taking place on the moderate opposition, which is welcome. It has also enabled us, with others, to get aid to communities that desperately need it, including through air drops and convoys. I would not put too much optimism into the mix right now, but this is progress and we should work on it.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
Q15. Two weeks ago I visited the Zaatari refugee camp and the surrounding area on the Jordanian-Syrian border, primarily to assess healthcare services. I was struck by the remarkable generosity of the Jordanian people. However, the local system is under significant pressure. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss further what Britain can do to enhance healthcare services on the ground, both for the Syrian refugees and for the wider Jordanian community?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the situation. That refugee camp is an extraordinary sight, because of the scale of the endeavour under way. I think that Britain can be proud of what we have done, in terms of the direct aid that we have given and the London conference, which raised $11 billion for the refugee camps. I know that he has a long-standing interest in what we can do to ensure that facilities are delivered quickly, including, on occasion, using military facilities, and I think that there might be opportunities for that. We also need to ensure that the emergency response from non-governmental organisations and the United Nations is as fast as it can be when such crises happen in future.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Prime Minister struggles with certain elements in his party over Europe, does he ever think back to an inspirational and visionary Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who faced similar difficulties but stood up to the rebels in his own party and secured a yes vote for staying in Europe? Will he join me in celebrating the centenary of Harold Wilson’s birth next week? Across all parties we should celebrate that great, innovative Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I do feel a natural sympathy for anyone who has had this job, irrespective of the side of the House they were on. I think that Harold Wilson did some very important things for our country. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular connection to him. I wish his family well on this important centenary. I am sure that we approach things in different ways, but one thing that we would have agreed on is that Britain’s future is better off in a reformed European Union.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to Neil and Jennifer Burdett, the parents of two-year-old Faye, who died on Valentine’s day of meningitis B. Since Faye’s death, 815,000 people have signed the petition calling on the Government to vaccinate more children against meningitis B. I am proud that the UK is the first country to have a vaccination programme for meningitis B, but could my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government look at what more could be done to prevent more children like Faye dying from this horrid disease?
The Prime Minister
On behalf of the whole House, let me extend our sympathies and condolences to Faye’s parents and to all those who have had children suffering from this terrible disease. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we were the first country in the world to have this vaccination programme. The programme was based on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, who recommended targeting the vaccine to protect the infants at highest risk. The incidence of highest risk does occur in babies of five months, and of the 276 children contracting meningitis B last year, over 100 were under one year of age. But my hon. Friend makes important points. We need to look at all the evidence carefully, as do the expert bodies that advise us, recognising that Britain has already taken some very important steps forward by being the first country to vaccinate in this way.
State Pension Age
(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
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the Government’s review of the state pension age.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Yesterday we announced the appointment of John Cridland to lead an independent review of the state pension age. The review will make recommendations for the Government to consider, to ensure the future state pension age is fair and affordable in the long term.
The review will report by May 2017. I want to stress that the review is independently led and evidence led. Evidence will be put forward for Sir John to consider in his important considerations about the future of the state pension. The review will consider changes in life expectancy, as well as wider changes in society.
It is useful at this point to remind the House why this kind of review is necessary. In 1945, a man expecting to retire at 65 had a life expectancy of between 60 and 63. Men’s life expectancy rose from 14.27 years in retirement after their pension age to 27 years under the present forecast and existing timescales. Women have gone from 18 years in retirement after their pensionable age to 29.5 years in retirement.
Future generations, therefore, would rightly expect that we reflect those changes in how we set the pension. They would not thank us—we very rarely hear anybody talk about future generations—if we did not take the right decisions at the right time and did not have the courage to ensure pensions are sustainable, to avoid people having to pick up an increasing bill, which would make their lives even more difficult.
I want to make clear what this review is not about. It does not cover the existing state pension age timetable—it picks up from April 2028. We have already provided legislation for this, and the review will not look to change the state pension age up to that point.
It is worth reminding the Opposition at this point that when the Labour Government were last in power, they first legislated for state pension age rises beyond 65, but without any commitment to a special independent review, which we have undertaken. When we brought forward the Pensions Bill in 2013, the then Opposition seemed to have had a change of heart, and they—quite legitimately and reasonably, I thought at the time—agreed with us on the need for a regular independent review of the state pension age. Let me quote what the then shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), said during the course of the Bill’s passage:
“The Secretary of State and I have no difference of opinion on the need regularly to review the state pension age.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 661.]
It is worth reminding everybody that in that Bill was a statutory provision for a regular set of reviews of the pension age. Yesterday’s announcement is simply in line with that statutory requirement. That is what we are now doing, and that is what the then shadow Secretary of State said in agreement. I also remind the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) that at the time Labour made no amendment to change the nature or scope of the review; nor, I recall, did it have anything in its manifesto to do with that.
Under the legislation, we are required to appoint an independent reviewer who will make recommendations on future state pension age requirements. We have appointed Sir John Cridland to lead this work. The legislation also requires us to report on this in 2017. I can assure the House that we will report back to the House in an oral statement and a written statement on whatever comes forward from that review.
This review is part of the Government’s reforms to pensions to ensure that they are affordable for the long term. It is right that we recognise those who have reached their pension age and who have worked hard, done the right thing, and provided for their families. I believe that this Government are delivering for those very people. As a result of our triple lock, pensioners will receive a basic state pension over £1,000 a year higher than at the start of the previous Parliament and under the previous Government. We have provided greater security and more choice and dignity for people in retirement, while also ensuring that the system is sustainable for future generations.
Owen Smith
May I start by welcoming the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box? We have missed him in recent months and are grateful that he is gracing us with his rare presence today.
Despite the statement we have just heard, I think that people travelling to work this morning will have been shocked to learn that the Government are planning yet another review of the retirement age and, in the immediate future, of when they can claim their state pension, with a clear implication that, as was the case with the women’s state pension, they intend to increase it further and faster than we, or the people of Britain, were expecting. People will also have been shocked to read this morning the Pensions Minister’s statement in another place, in response to the news of this review, that under the Tories the state pension age should no longer be considered as “a retirement age”. In other words, people will be able to retire only if they are rich enough or have a fat private pension; otherwise they will have to keep working—working until they drop, as one pensions professor warns this morning.
So could the Secretary of State try to clarify exactly what his Government’s long-term economic plan is for pensioners? Is it, as was the case with the botched reforms of women’s pensions, and as was implied in the terms of reference for this review, that people can expect the Government to ratchet up the retirement age much faster than expected? Can he guarantee that even if this review is not considering the planned increase to 67 by 2028, his Government will not bring forward that change? If that promise is not ratted on, can he confirm that his Government are considering speeding up subsequent rises, with increases to 69 or 70 being considered for people currently in their mid-40s? Could he also confirm that this will be a double whammy for those pension savers, as under his reforms everyone aged under 43 will have a worse state pension? Does he agree with his pensions colleague in the Lords that in the light of his reforms, the state pension age should no longer be considered as the retirement age, and so in future only the wealthy will have the luxury of retiring, while the rest will just have to keep on working?
Finally, what does the Secretary of State think is the upper limit for the state pension age? Is it 75, 76 or 77—or is it 80, as his former Pensions Minister colleague warned today? Is not the truth that the new pension promise is not the 75p that the Tories are always banging on about, but the 75 years that people will have to work and wait under this Tory Government before they get their state pension?
Mr Duncan Smith
Well, all I can assume from that rather pathetic response is that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) did not think that his urgent question would be granted and that, after he heard that it had been granted, he scribbled away massively, because it was utter idiocy. I want to be kind to him, because he has made a career out of being Mr Angry at the drop of a hat. I remind him—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear this, but I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. Let me remind him of exactly what his party was about before he took over as the Opposition spokesman. Let me—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) ought to know better, because he is a statesman—or, at any rate, a statesman of sorts—and should not conduct himself in an unseemly manner. As for the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I have told him before to be careful: if you have that hot curry too often, it tends to have an effect upon your demeanour in the Chamber.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am also worried about the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell). He has been here a long time and I want him to have a very good retirement, but he needs to calm down or he will not make it at this rate.
I remind the Opposition that the questions that the hon. Member for Pontypridd asked were all answered by his party when it was in government. It was the Labour Government who raised the state pension age—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like being reminded of that. They did not have an independent review before they did it. They did it arbitrarily and set a set of dates, but they did not ask an independent reviewer to look at them. We are doing that now. That is what we were asked to do, and I think we are being reasonable about it.
It is also worth reminding the hon. Gentleman of what the then shadow Pensions Minister, Gregg McClymont, said when this statutory review—it is, I repeat, statutory—was passed by the Pensions Act 2014. He said—
Mr Duncan Smith
Yes, I am doing it, but the hon. Gentleman’s party agreed with it. He should calm down, or he will never make it to state pension age. Gregg McClymont, the then Opposition spokesman, said at the time,
“we do not oppose the Bill”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 870.]
That was Labour’s position on the statutory requirement to review the state pension age. Baroness Sherlock said:
“It is vital that the way the state pension age is reviewed is…seen to be fair”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2013; Vol. 750, c. 146.]
That is exactly what we are doing.
It is Labour that instituted the rises in the state pension, raised women’s state pension age and went for the equalisation of state pension age. In government, it started to do the responsible things, but in opposition it is utterly irresponsible and pointless.
I have one final comment to make to the hon. Member for Pontypridd. As I stood up, somebody said to me—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) are both rather cerebral academics. I cannot believe that they would conduct themselves in this manner in a university seminar. If they would not do so there, they should not misbehave here. Whatever they think of what the Secretary of State is saying, they must hear it.
Mr Duncan Smith
Exactly, Mr Speaker, thank you. I say to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that, as I stood up, somebody told me—rather unfairly, I thought at the time—that he is shallow. Sadly, I now think that he gives shallow people a bad name. His response was pathetic and the urgent question was asked by an Opposition who have no policy and who jump around opposing everything and racking up spending commitments. No wonder they haven’t a hope in hell of being in government.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Every western democracy surely has a responsibility to review its state pension age on a regular basis and in a totally non-tribal, non-party political way so that its people know, a long time ahead, what changes will be made to the state pension age. If, in the past, we took too long to change the state pension age and then moved too quickly, surely now the cross-party consensus that was reached shows us that the right thing for the House to do is to set up the review, and that it should report back next year.
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend, who has spoken about the matter on a number of occasions, is right, and I thought that we had that consensus. We certainly had it during the last Parliament, because the Liberal Democrats in the coalition agreed with us. The hon. Member for Pontypridd has mentioned the former Pensions Minister, who was keen to get a state pension age review. The Pensions Commission has said that increases in the state pension age are essential and that an independent body should be established to review them. We are doing exactly that.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Life expectancy in Scotland still lags around two years behind that in the rest of the UK. That gap persists across all social demographics and costs the average Scottish pensioner around £10,000. However, I am just as concerned about healthy life expectancy, which determines the age at which people start to experience illness and disability that limit their capacity for work. Healthy life expectancy is not rising at the same speed as life expectancy; in fact, the gap between the two is widening. Given the Government’s reductions in support for sick and disabled people of working age—we are due to discuss those changes later today—can we have any confidence that further increases in state pension age will not simply condemn thousands of older people with serious health conditions to an impoverished old age on state benefits prior to their official retirement?
Mr Duncan Smith
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her tone, and she has asked a legitimate question. The whole reason why we have instituted an independent review is so that people can raise such questions. I encourage her and her party to submit to the review and to Sir John Cridland their concerns about the different demographic issues in Scotland. They are well known, and it is quite legitimate for the hon. Lady to raise them with him. The point is that because Sir John is independent, he can look at the whole question—including aspects such as demographic changes or changes in the work that people do—and take a view about it. He may recommend that we make no changes, or he may come back to us with recommendations for change. I do not prejudge that, but I recommend that the hon. Lady make all those points to him.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
In 1995, when I was Chancellor, I was among those who recognised that the old system was unaffordable. We thought that we were being courageous in giving 20 years’ notice of our intention to raise the retirement age. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in hindsight, we underestimated the remarkably welcome improvements in life expectancy and in the number of women who qualify for a full pension, and that we should have gone faster? Does he also agree that, inevitably, there will be loud complaints from those who are unlucky enough to be born at a time when they are just affected by the change, but that a Government have a duty to proceed in the interests of the country and in the interests of future generations of working taxpayers, who will not be able to afford to sustain our system unless we respond to reality?
Mr Duncan Smith
My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I thought that the position of successive Governments was to take that as a non-party political point and agree on the need to make those changes, the pace of which should be decided independently. We have done that. It was brave of the Government of whom he was a part to start the process of change, but it was always going to be necessary to review the matter in line with demographics. Recent demographic shifts have been rapid, so we are carrying out such a review now. I regret the fact that the Opposition have chosen to play political games rather than supporting this necessary change.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that millions of people, having seen what the Government did in respect of the equalisation of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s, will look at the proposal and be worried that they are about to repeat those mistakes? Will he set out what transitional arrangements he expects for the changes, and whether that opens up the opportunity to look again at the injustice that has been done to those represented by the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign?
Mr Duncan Smith
It is a legitimate concern to ensure that we give people plenty of notice, and Sir John Cridland will be looking at that carefully. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a submission to the review about transitional arrangements, it is absolutely possible for him to do so, and I encourage him to do just that. This Government did not introduce those changes, but we introduced a transitional change for those who were affected to improve the lot of a large majority of those who would otherwise have been adversely affected.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
At the moment, there are three people paying national insurance for every person who receives a state pension; by 2040, if nothing changes, there will be only two people paying national insurance for every person who receives a state pension. There are more people in higher education than there have been in the past, and life expectancy has increased. Surely, in the long term, it is only common sense to match the retirement age to life expectancy in some way. We cannot enter the labour market later, leave it earlier, live longer and expect the state to pick up the bill.
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth putting that into the context of what we have already done to sustain and support pensioners in the longer term. First, we have introduced more saving through automatic enrolment. More than 6 million people are saving for a pension. Secondly, the introduction of the single tier puts pension payments above the means test, allowing people to save in the knowledge that they will always hold their savings. Thirdly, the state pension is more than £1,000 higher than it was when we came into office. That is why we need to get the demographic changes right. We are going to be fairer to pensioners and support them as other Governments have never done.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I am not going to get angry, but I gently point out to the Secretary of State that he is quite wrong to say that there is a consensus on the matter. Indeed, he has broken the consensus that he established with the excellent former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb. The agreement was that independent reviews would look every five years at life expectancy and fairness for those who were paying in, but the Secretary of State is introducing affordability, which was not part of the original proposal, as well as bringing the review forward. Will he acknowledge that that is a change from what he agreed with Steve Webb and what the coalition Government delivered?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to find a difference, because I do not think that there is one. No one has more respect for the former Pensions Minister than I do; he is a good personal friend and I thought he did a brilliant job as Pensions Minister. As coalition partners, we worked well together. He and I agreed to introduce the independent review in the Pensions Act 2014. Sir John is quite capable of looking at the matter in the round, as we have asked him to do, and making a decision on the basis of “robust, evidence-based analysis”, as set out in the terms of reference. He may yet say, “I see no need to make any change,” but I am prepared to back him on that.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Our population is growing year on year, principally through immigration, so it is right that we look to the future. Will the independent review look at two scenarios, in which Britain either can or cannot control its immigration, depending on whether we remain in Europe? Will my right hon. Friend be able to see any of the information that comes through on both those scenarios?
Mr Duncan Smith
Tempting though it is to involve the review in other areas, it is focused on the need to figure out whether, given the circumstances, demographics and affordability, the state pension age should rise and what it should be in years to come. I am happy for the review to be limited to that.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
There are 2.6 million women who feel that they have not been given enough notice of changes to their pensions. I implore the Secretary of State to be straight with young people today about the fact that those of them who are born in areas of low life expectancy will be dead before they receive a pension.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am not sure that the hon. Lady came into politics to decide that the future for people is so bleak that nothing can be done. Our role in this House is to make the changes necessary to improve people’s life chances and lengthen their life expectancy, so that they may enjoy the fruits of that life expectancy, having worked hard and saved hard, in a decent time of retirement. I am an optimist about Britain; she is a pessimist about Britain.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to review the pension age every five years and to give people the opportunity to know their retirement age with a long lead-in time, so that they can plan for a secure future for themselves and their families?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Essentially, the commitment made in the 2014 Act was to have a review in every Parliament. That will allow every Parliament to make decisions, and I hope that any changes, by the time we make them, can be done on a non-party basis. That would be the way to do it, and that is what we are engaged in.
This review was always known about. For those who are suddenly complaining that they had not noticed it, today’s written ministerial statement was down to be made yesterday. I do not recall their doing a single thing to bring it to anyone’s attention until a couple of newspapers wrote articles, after which a request for an urgent question was suddenly sent in.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I think everyone recognises that we need to review pension arrangements, especially given the demographics in the United Kingdom, but all such reviews throw up difficult cases and anomalies, not least in relation to differences in life expectancy across the regions of the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the review looks at such discrepancies, and that things are properly built in to make sure that information is given out when changes are made?
Mr Duncan Smith
Much as I said to the spokesman for the Scottish nationalists, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, yes, it is recognised that there are issues about such areas. The point is that it is within scope of the review for him or anyone in his party to raise such issues with Sir John Cridland, and it is certainly within its scope for him, or anybody else he wants, to give evidence to the review.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has given some very cogent figures to the House, particularly the change in the number of years people can expect to spend in retirement from 14 to 27. Will he confirm that the independent review will be conducted in an impartial manner? Is not what we are hearing from Opposition Front Benchers and their friends in the SNP simply scaremongering?
Mr Duncan Smith
I will repeat the figures. They are backed by what our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Chancellor in a previous Conservative Government, once said with great foresight. The fact is that life expectancy for a man who retired in 1945, when the pensionable age was 65, was between 60 and 63. With the same retirement age, the expected period in retirement has risen to about 27 years. We must take that into consideration. I want more people to be able to work longer, and it was me and the then Pensions Minister who raised the default retirement age to stop companies telling people that they could not work past 65. Such people can now carry on working. We have done a lot, and this review is all part of that process.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that he wanted to reward those who work hard and do the right thing. He did not do that for women born in the 1950s, many of whom were given only three years’ notice of the acceleration in their state pension age. Will he now give the House a commitment that he will not, as he did in the Pensions Act 2011, further accelerate the changes in the state pension age that are due to come in up to 2046?
Mr Duncan Smith
I accept that the hon. Lady raises a legitimate point but I wish that, in doing so, she would encompass the fact that she sat on the Labour Benches under a Government who raised the pensionable age and that accusations of “no notice” can very much be lodged at the door of the previous Labour Government. I simply say to her that, during the last Government, we made changes to improve the lot of many of those affected. As I have said, the independent review will look at all of that post-2028 and make recommendations about the best way forward. I hope that she will give evidence to the review if she has such concerns.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that countries around the globe are being forced to confront the impact of rapidly rising life expectancy levels, and it appears that only Opposition parties are in complete denial about the need for a sustainable state pension age?
Mr Duncan Smith
That is a fact. Many of our neighbours have already equalised pensionable ages and are accelerating the move to a later pensionable age ahead of us. Germany, Norway and various other countries around the world have done so, and it is only right that we should do so as well. Otherwise, we will place a burden on our children and our children’s children, who will not thank us for not taking the brave decisions that are necessary.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am 33. Will the Secretary of State tell me and others in my age cohort the age at which we will be entitled to retire?
Mr Duncan Smith
I can tell the hon. Lady that it is very clear when she and those her age will retire. It is very clear that the independent review will make recommendations. If she wants to make her position clear and give her view, she should give evidence to the independent review. We will have a review in every Parliament. I do not understand why her party is against having a review. Surely we want an independent review so that it can be fair and balanced. I would have hoped that she welcomed that.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the advantage of an independent review in every Parliament is that we should be able to give greater visibility to when changes will happen? Will he commit to not having a change with less than 10 years’ notice for those affected?
Mr Duncan Smith
That is exactly the flow of timings at the moment. Sir John Cridland has to consider that, and we want him to look at making sure that such a process happens. We want people to have plenty of notice, and I know recommendations have been made about that. As I said earlier, he will look at that under his terms of reference, as will the next review and so on. I would simply say to my hon. Friend that if he has an issue, he should put it to the review.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State claims to be an optimist, but I see precious little to be optimistic about. We have had the stock Government response that, in raising any concerns, we are scaremongering. Does the Secretary of State agree that many of my constituents will, because of regional variations in life expectancy, die before they receive their state pension and have an absolute right to be scared?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am sorry that the hon. Lady takes that view. We have rising life expectancy. We have people earning more in jobs. We have more people in work. We have more people saving, and preparing for their retirement, than ever before. We have a pension coming in that means they will not get means-tested. I have to say that I am optimistic on those grounds. I do not, however, blame her for being pessimistic because if I was sitting on the Labour Benches today, I would be really pessimistic.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents approaching retirement age that the headlines splashed across this morning’s papers—in one case, saying that people will be required to work until they are 81—have no basis in fact whatever, given that this is just the start of the review and that no conclusions have been made, let alone agreed by the House?
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that this independent review will look at all of that. The papers have to make their own decisions—I will not be critical of them—but I would simply say that they cannot extrapolate from the announcement of a statutory independent review and say that it will somehow have certain implications for the retirement age going forward. All I would say is that it is necessary to get the balance right between people who are paying for those who have retired and people who have retired and are saving. It is the job of the Government to get that right, and I hoped it would be approached more consensually across the Floor of the House.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I want to raise another anomaly with the Secretary of State. People who worked in Northern Ireland when they were 14 and 15 paid national insurance contributions between 1947 and 1957, but those contributions did not count towards their pension entitlement because the school leaving age in Britain was a little higher. Can that anomaly be raised with Sir John Cridland and addressed so that it can finally be rectified?
Mr Duncan Smith
As I understand it, that specific issue is not within the scope of the review, but I am certainly happy to talk to the hon. Lady about it. In general, the point about the review is that it is the first time—I would have hoped this would therefore be welcomed—that someone has asked an independent body to review such anomalies. I am very happy to speak to her if she wants to come and see me.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
This is a policy on which there should be consensus and cross-party support. The evidence is that we are living longer and healthier lives, and not just in Mid Dorset and North Poole, so there should be optimism across the country. Does the Secretary of State agree that the responsible thing to do is to have an independent review, follow the statutory regime and examine the evidence and all the options, rather than scaremongering and using phrases such as “working until they drop”?
Mr Duncan Smith
I must say that I was slightly surprised earlier today when I saw the Opposition spokesman tweeting the most inflammatory comments about people retiring. I can understand that those in opposition need to try to get attention, but to start worrying and scaring people without foundation or reality is nothing short of appalling. I wish the hon. Gentleman would get up and apologise for that.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The review will consider variations in pension arrangements between “different groups”. Will the Secretary of State give more detail on whether “different groups” refers to occupations, such as shift workers or, to give an example from my constituency, bus drivers, who get chronic bladder conditions? The life expectancy and health of those groups deteriorates as a result of their occupation. Will those issues be raised in the review?
Mr Duncan Smith
It is certainly within scope for that matter to be raised with the reviewer. He and his team have the power to review it. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman raises that concern. It is up to the reviewer to what degree he looks at it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Notwithstanding the antics of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to underscore the national importance of this issue and I commend the approach that his Department has set out. Despite the depressing and dispiriting response from the Opposition parties, will he undertake to continue to try to build a national consensus and a consensus across the House on this issue, as it affects all our constituents and should be above party politics?
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. My door is always open and I am always ready to see somebody, even if they then change their mind. I have found the tweet that the shadow Secretary of State sent this morning—strangely, not after he had seen the statement, but only after he had seen the newspapers. It states:
“Pensions Minister scraps retirement for all but the rich and those lucky enough to have a good private pension!!!”
How ridiculous is that? This is the announcement of a statutory review that his party agreed with in 2014. He really needs to apologise.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State and all of us here are fortunate to have satisfying, well-paid jobs, but many of our countrymen and women work just to survive. Will the review look at whether it should always be the presumption that living longer means working longer, or might we look at alternative ways of funding the basic state pension so that people are able to benefit and live fulfilled lives in retirement as a result of better healthcare and the fact that we are living longer?
Mr Duncan Smith
Again, that is a wholly legitimate question for the hon. Gentleman to raise. As I said to his party’s spokesman, that matter is within scope for the reviewer, if he wishes to raise it. The reviewer and his team will have to decide how to get the balance right. It is certainly within scope for the hon. Gentleman and his party to ask the reviewer to look at that balance and to see whether some of the presumptions are necessary, and I urge him to do so.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The Secretary of State has been a champion of pensioners with the triple lock, the single-tier pension and automatic enrolment, which is now benefiting more than 6 million people. Does he agree that, in the light of the cross-party support for an independent review in 2014, it is rank hypocrisy for Labour Front Benchers to try to make political capital out of it today?
Mr Duncan Smith
I genuinely regret that the consensus that was achieved for the 2014 legislation has been tossed aside in a matter of hours by the Opposition, apparently over breakfast this morning. [Interruption.] I urge them, instead of chuntering away on the Front Bench, to remember what their spokesman said in 2014. He said categorically:
“we do not oppose the Bill”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 870.]
They agreed with the regular review. I urge the Opposition to get back to the sensible position of wanting to co-operate over changes to the pension age.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State about different occupations? Certain professions, such as those who serve in the armed services, the fire brigade and the police, require a lot of physical strength. We should even think about surgeons, who will have to operate on people later on in life. Has Sir John Cridland been asked to look at those people’s retirement ages?
Mr Duncan Smith
That is another legitimate question. It is within scope for the hon. Lady to raise it with John Cridland and I urge her to do so. A number of similar points have been made. Of course, he will have to make the final decision about the balance of his review within the terms of reference, but this matter is certainly within the terms of reference. I wish those on the Front Bench of the hon. Lady’s party had taken such a positive view.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I have listened to this discussion for 45 minutes and, setting aside the bluster from some of the Opposition parties, the only point of divergence that I can see is on whether the Government have included a requirement for this five-yearly statutory inquiry to consider affordability. If that is the case, does my right hon. Friend agree that affordability should definitely be part of any inquiry into our pensions system?
Given that we have a national debt of £1.7 trillion or £24,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, it would be a crime for the Government not to consider whether our pension age is affordable. I hope that the other parties will reconsider, particularly Labour and the Lib Dems, given that this was the only point of difference that their spokesmen could raise.
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. I thought that there was consensus on this matter, but it has apparently been torn up. I urge those on the Opposition Front Bench to change their minds and engage with the review. Of course affordability will be considered. I do not know of any Government that would genuinely say, “We will make some change and not think about whether it is affordable.” Hang on a second—the last Labour Government did that, actually. I am sad to hear that the Opposition are following their usual trend, which is to shout a lot and make commitments they could never possibly meet if they were in government.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State rule out the prospect of the retirement age being increased to 84 as a result of the review, as was predicted by the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb? Are the Government prepared to set any upper limit on the state retirement age?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady should not grab on to and believe everything that is printed in the newspapers. They have their own legitimate reasons for publishing stuff. There is nothing in the review that talks about that. I have said categorically that John Cridland will review, within the terms of reference, where we should go with state pension ages and look at other aspects, such as affordability, within the context of what people have done and what their details are. If the hon. Lady has a particular issue she wants to raise, she should raise it with him.
What is untenable is that the hon. Lady’s party opposes an independent and regular review of state pensions. Why would anybody do that? [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Secretary of State shouting, “Rigged.” The only thing that was rigged was the way that he got on to the Front Bench to be the Opposition spokesman.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
As someone who accepted the rise in his own pension age to 68 in 2007 on the basis of the evidence presented by the Labour party, it has been disappointing to hear the tenor of the Opposition’s comments today. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the review will be independent and that it will take into account factors across the country, not just in London and the south-east, that affect life expectancy? Will he assure me that we will seek to have constructive engagement with the Opposition? If we cannot get it with the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps we should try to get it with the shadow Pensions Minister instead.
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The important thing is that there is an independent review and that we own up to the decisions that we have to take. I wish the Opposition would accept that they took decisions about the state pension age. They have collective amnesia about anything that happened not just pre-2010, but apparently pre-2015. I expect that they will shortly forget everything pre-2016 and that it will go on like that. They should wake up, smell the coffee and get on with being an Opposition in the hope of being in government, not perpetually in opposition.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is concerning and disappointing that further changes are being considered, given that the Government have not even fixed the botched mess they made of the transition for women born in the 1950s. Several of those women have come to my constituency surgery and some of them face losses of up to £30,000 as a result of the unfair transition. I wonder how many of the WASPI women have gone to the Secretary of State’s surgeries or those of his Ministers and what message he has had for them.
Mr Duncan Smith
The terms of this urgent question and the review are to look beyond 2028. I accept that there are demographic issues in Scotland, such as a faster ageing population, that cause particular issues. I would therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party welcomed an independent review by an independent individual that can look at any aspects and problems in Scotland that they wish to raise. I urge them to do that. I take it from the nodding of his head that he welcomes the independent review, unlike the Labour Front Benchers.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Cridland review moves the indicator from life expectancy to health—mental as well as physical health—particularly for post-menopausal women, and that people can have quality of life post-retirement, so that we can gain from that social capital and people can look forward to their retirement?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady raises a wholly legitimate set of issues and concerns. We must consider how we deal with people who retire and their quality of life in retirement. I therefore agree with her, and urge her to talk to the review and ask that it finds some way to look at those issues, which we need to consider anyway.
Humanitarian Crisis: Greece
(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
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the developing humanitarian crisis in Greece.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I am delighted to be here to respond to the urgent question.
A situation of humanitarian concern is unfolding in Greece. There are reportedly approximately 10,000 people at the border between Greece and Macedonia. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that around 24,000 people—maybe more—are stranded across Greece. Greek authorities have established two camps at the border with a projected total capacity of 12,500, but crowded conditions are putting pressure on delivering essential support to people.
The UK is already providing nearly £55 million to the Mediterranean migration crisis response. This includes essential supplies such as blankets, sleeping mats and tents, as well as support through non-governmental organisations and UN agencies. The UK has established a new refugee children fund for Europe, which will meet the specific need of unaccompanied and separated children.
We should of course remember that the vast majority of Syrians who have fled Syria are in countries neighbouring Syria. That is why the UK continues to be at the forefront of the response to the crisis in the region. The recent London conference on Syria raised more than $11 billion with the Prime Minister announcing that the UK will more than double our total pledge to the Syria crisis from £1.12 billion to more than £2.3 billion. As part of this, we are working in partnership with host countries such as Jordan and Lebanon to help them expand job and education opportunities for refugees in a way that will enable them to better support themselves and give them hope for the future where they are.
The UK is working across the EU to ensure that a humanitarian crisis is averted and that the most vulnerable people are protected and provided with shelter. We are monitoring the situation closely. We stand ready to meet other priority needs and are sending a team to Greece to assess the situation.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer. We all recognise the important role that the Department for International Development has played in responding to the humanitarian crisis. Sadly, I regret that the same cannot be said of the Home Office, hence my targeting the question at that Department.
Yesterday, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees warned that Europe faces an imminent humanitarian crisis, largely of its own making. As the Secretary of State reported, UNHCR described crowding and shortages of food, shelter, water and sanitation in Greece. I agree with her that, first, we need an emergency aid response, and the £55 million to which she referred is indeed welcome. However, secondly, we need an urgent strategic response from other European states to share responsibility for supporting Greece in processing and hosting arrivals. Does she agree that border closures, tear gas and rubber bullets do not amount to the required strategic response? Is it not obvious, as the UN has pointed out, that Greece cannot manage the situation alone?
Will the Secretary of State please now agree with the UN that it remains vital that the European agreements on relocation are prioritised and implemented? If not, who do the Government think should take on the responsibility? Is it the Government’s position that Greece alone must shoulder it? If she agrees that the challenge of relocation should be shared, how can the UK Government defend not playing their part in that?
Will the Secretary of State also back UN calls for increased regular pathways for the admission of refugees from countries neighbouring Syria? In the light of the unfolding tragedy, will the Government look again at increased resettlement, expanded family reunification, private sponsorship and humanitarian and refugee student and work visas? Surely, in that way, we can reduce dangerous journeys, save lives and support Greece.
Justine Greening
I will start with the hon. Gentleman’s final point. He is right that ensuring that refugees can get on with life, even though they cannot be at home, is incredibly important. That is why the London conference focused not just on jobs and work permits so that refugees can work in neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, but on ensuring that children are back in school, and looking ahead further than the next few years to their future. Those new, groundbreaking steps are important to understand how we can tackle more comprehensively the sort of crisis that is emanating from the conflict in Syria.
On the hon. Gentleman’s other points, the UK has worked hand in hand with the UN. We hosted the London conference with the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and I welcome the announcement that has just come from the EU about the step-up in support for refugees who arrive in Europe. I should say that the announcement has just been made, but our initial look at it—we need to examine it in greater detail—suggests that it proposes precisely the response that the UK has already put in place. It focuses on enabling NGOs that are already on the ground to do a better job, and UNHCR to do a stronger job, particularly in processing and registering refugees. Doubtless, as we get into the detail of the announcement, it will give us more of an indication of exactly what the plans are, but they certainly look like ones that we would welcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked about how Europe more broadly is responding to the crisis. Essentially, there are two different aspects alongside the pieces that I have just mentioned. One is sensible border control. The UK is not part of the Schengen area, for reasons that have become clear in recent months. However, it is important that countries such as Greece are helped to ensure that they can manage their borders more effectively. That is why the Home Office has worked with the Greek authorities. Of course, it is also important that, when refugees arrive in Europe, they make use of mechanisms such as the Dublin convention. We have a co-ordinated approach of dealing with refugees in Europe, but the challenge is that that has broken down in recent months. The UK has taken a clear position based on our proud history of accepting people who seek asylum and refugees, but of course the approach needs to be sensibly managed both for those who want to claim asylum and refugee status, and for the countries where people seek safety.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend recognise that we are talking about refugees, not migrants, that the two are different, and that we are dealing with men, women and children who are fleeing war zones. This country has a proud and honourable tradition, which is being honoured now in our seeking to assist, but the European Union response has been chaotic. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is right: using rubber bullets and tear gas against children and women is not the answer. When will my right hon. Friend and her colleagues in our Cabinet seek to convene a European meeting to produce a proper and holistic response?
Justine Greening
For many months, we have pressed for the comprehensive approach that, as my hon. Friend says, is required. The crisis has not emerged just in the last few weeks. There is an EU-Turkey summit next week, which will give us a good chance to see a more structured response from the European Union. However, throughout the process, the UK approach has steadily emerged as the most sensible. First, it deals with root causes. It helps people where they are in the region, and considers some of the reasons for their loss of hope about staying there, such as lack of jobs and the inability to get their children back into school. Where people need to relocate, we are enabling them to do so safely and securely.
We are working with UNHCR and other agencies on the ground to identify the most vulnerable people affected by this crisis in the region, and we are relocating those who need relocation in a sensible, managed way. That is much better for those people because they do not have to put their lives in the hands of people smugglers, and it is significantly better for the countries that people go to, because it enables them—as in the UK—to work with local authorities and communities, and ensure that they are prepared to take in refugees who are being relocated, and that the right services and provisions are in place when they arrive.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has spoken again about what the Government are doing for refugees in the middle east, which is wholly commendable, but this urgent question is about the millions of refugees—including half a million Syrians—in Europe, and especially the plight of Greece. I was in Greece last month. The Greek people have been as hospitable as they can be, but their Prime Minister said this week that with the closure of the Macedonian border, and with tens of thousands of people backing up in Greece in the streets of Athens and on the islands, Greece runs the risk of becoming a permanent “warehouse of souls”.
What are the Government doing to get bilateral aid to the Greeks in this crisis, and to encourage Turkey to do something about the thousands of refugees who are being shipped from Turkey into Greece, with some coming increasingly from north Africa? What pressure are the Government bringing to bear on Turkey to put a stop to that and to make it easier for refugees in Turkey to work and get education for their children? Irrespective of the fact that we are not in Schengen, what are the Government doing to work with fellow members of the European family of nations to be more effective against people traffickers and provide safe routes for refugees? Above all, how can we turn our back on the people of Greece, who risk being overwhelmed because of the absence of a strategic and humanitarian approach to this issue from all EU nations, including the UK?
Justine Greening
I strongly disagree with the hon. Lady’s last statement, because the UK is the largest contributor to the humanitarian response, including in Europe, and we have provided nearly £55 million to the Mediterranean migration crisis. She will be aware of the work that we have done in the Mediterranean helping to save lives in recent months with our Royal Navy and Border Force cutters. We have provided Greece with around £19 million of support in total, much of that to help the UNHCR, some to help NGOs on the ground and amazing organisations such as the Red Cross, and some to help the International Organisation for Migration. We have also worked with Greece to help it manage its borders more effectively.
The work that Britain is doing is showing the way to other member states in Europe with a sensible, thoughtful approach to this crisis that can help us not only to deal with root causes, which is what we are doing in the region, but to show that we must all provide support to refugees who are arriving closer to home here in Europe. The UK is leading the way in that.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and her ministerial team, who are doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances. The International Organisation for Migration suggests that 97,000 people have entered Greece in the past two months alone, which is eight times more than in the same period last year. Not all of them are Syrian refugees, although the majority are. What more can the Government do to work with the Governments of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Morocco, who make up the other 17%?
Justine Greening
Part of that is ensuring that we consider some of the root causes that make refugees undertake these journeys in the first place. My hon. Friend will be aware of much of the work that we are doing in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and also for people who are shifting from parts of Africa. Much of our aid programme is intrinsically focused on improving opportunities in the countries where those young people grow up. In the end, the only solution to these sorts of crises are peace, for those driven by conflicts such as that in Syria, and development, in the case of migration flows that are due to people feeling that they do not have opportunities on their doorstep, and that they want to find better opportunities elsewhere.
Turkey currently has 2 million Syrian refugees, and we should praise the generosity of Turkey and Turkish communities—many of which I have had a chance to meet over the past few years—for the hospitality that they have provided. We will not rise to the challenge of dealing with this crisis by pointing the finger at other countries, although I know it is tempting to do so. We would like other countries in Europe to contribute more, as the UK has done, but in the end we will rise to this challenge by working more collaboratively together in a thoughtful, evidence-based way that understands the drivers behind what is making people move, while not accepting criminality such as people smuggling.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), I recognise the role that DFID has already played, but can the Secretary of State confirm that her response today does not include any new announcements of funding or resource? Does that mean that this latest crisis was somehow foreseen in the needs analysis that the Government carried out before the funding announcements that they have already made? What general needs analysis was carried out before the Government decided to double their pledge at the Syria funding conference? The UK Government’s response cannot simply be about funding; at some point we must take our fair share of refugees from Europe to the United Kingdom, and by anyone’s calculation, 20,000 people over four years is not a fair share.
Justine Greening
First, our pledge to slightly more than double existing support to the crisis in Syria and the region affected by it was sensible and reflects the situation on the ground and what is needed. If we are to do the right thing, that means going beyond simply providing day-to-day life-saving supplies, because we must also get children back in school. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of Britain as not having played its role in helping people more directly in the region to relocate. The Prime Minister has set out what I think is a sensible approach of taking 20,000 people over the course of this Parliament. Those will be the most vulnerable people who would otherwise have absolutely no prospect of getting out of that region. We are working directly with UN agencies and with local authorities around the country to help those people do just that. There will also be people in Scotland who provide a home to those people, and we must ensure that when we bring them to the UK, it is done in a sensible, measured and effective manner.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for coming to the House—I know they care deeply about the plight of refugees, and I do not doubt for one minute that they are working exceptionally hard on this issue. However, given what I saw when I visited Lesbos a month ago, I am not surprised by the chaos that Greece is now in—you could see it coming. The Secretary of State kindly agreed to meet me to hear about what I had seen, and it is my fault that the meeting did not happen, for which I apologise.
I remain convinced that the UK has a greater leadership role to play to ensure that Greece is supported and not left to collapse and be abandoned by the rest of Europe, as is happening now. In the mix of this whole sorry mess, unaccompanied and orphaned—let us call them what they really are—children, are still there and need our care and hope, and I believe that the UK and other countries have a moral obligation to home them. I am being simplistic, but for me, blankets are not enough. Our leadership in the region and in Syria is exemplary and I will not hear a word said against it, but there are orphaned children in Europe now. Can we not take some?
Justine Greening
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I am still very happy to meet her directly and I am sorry she was not able to make the meeting we had planned. She is right to raise the issue of how children are affected by this crisis. It is why we have put education at the heart of our response.
On children who are arriving in Europe, my hon. Friend will be aware that we have announced a £10 million fund to ensure that we have a much better system of identifying children across Europe, working with UNHCR to make sure children are specifically protected and in safe spaces, and are able to get to where they are trying to get to in a way that does not put them at any more risk. A number of countries across the European Union can help to provide safety for children. That is what we want to happen—we want a more co-ordinated approach. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are extending our vulnerable persons scheme to include unaccompanied children. The one bit of good news in all of this is that, in part because of DFID’s work in the Syria region, children arriving in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon are being reunited with their families.
I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that our desire is to make sure that children are taken care of. Implicit in her assumption is that many children want to come to the UK. Under the Dublin convention, if they are able to claim asylum and have links into the UK, we can consider their cases. This is one reason why it is so important to make sure that children are registered and inside the system. We are focusing on making sure that that happens. As she will know, it can be a very chaotic situation. Sometimes one of the biggest challenges we face is that children are very reluctant to come forward to the authorities. That is a problem we are trying to overcome.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The situation in Greece is becoming dangerous and could well implode as the crisis gets worse. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that the humanitarian aid from Britain and the EU is not yet enough to help Greece to cope with the crisis. Will she agree to look at how many refugees arriving in Greece have family in Britain who could look after them? Will she get that assessment done? Will she consider whether the refugee resettlement programme could be extended not just to cope with young, unaccompanied refugees, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) said, but others with family in Britain who could look after them, so that Britain can do its bit in a fair way?
Justine Greening
Today’s EU announcement is possibly one of the first big steps towards ensuring that the level of response in Europe is on the scale required. I agree with the right hon. Lady on that. Countries, including Britain, have stepped forward to do what they can. We work where we can with the Greek authorities, but more is required. It is good that the announcement appears to be scaling up against those needs.
On the right hon. Lady’s second point, I reiterate that we have good and sound processes that sit behind our asylum and refugee system here in the UK—obviously, we are not part of the Schengen area. Those are perfectly sensible approaches to work through the issue of where refugees will finally end up. We will not be a part of a pan-EU relocation approach. We think that that simply plays into the hands of people smugglers, who are perhaps the only people who gain from the present situation. We prefer a much more sensible approach, which is taking people directly from the region.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to focus on the humanitarian crisis in Greece, but does she agree that the wider region is important? For those who criticise the international aid budget, does she agree that not investing the 0.7% in countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, which have taken in millions of refugees, would mean a far bigger reduction in our growth prospects? This is not just morally the right thing to do, but is the sensible thing to do.
Justine Greening
I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. By pursuing the UK aid strategy of doing the right thing by some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, we also do the right thing by ourselves. Perhaps the worst long-term challenge of the many facing Syria is that many of its best and brightest are leaving the region. The more we can help people to stay close to home and close to their families, the more we prepare for Syria to have the people it needs to help it get back on its feet. As it stands that prospect seems a long way off, but that does not mean we should not try to do our best to achieve it.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and I were told last Thursday by Europol that 90% of the migrants who enter the EU do so because they are supported by organised criminal gangs. When will we get a statement from Ministers to tell us that there is success against the organised criminal gangs that are doing so much damage to the people of Europe? When is Turkey going to get the €3 billion we promised it to help it to deal with this crisis?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Gentleman will see that on the Treasury Bench with me is the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who I am sure will respond to his point on progress in tackling organised criminal gangs. Our National Crime Agency works very closely with Europol. He will be aware that we also played our role in saving lives in the Mediterranean with Royal Navy and Border Force cutters. The €3 billion has now been agreed. In fact, we managed to agree it in time for the London conference, which again was a step forward. The key is making sure that it is delivered and that the strategy behind how it is invested is strong. That needs to involve not just the day-to-day support for refugees whom Turkey is very generously hosting—we should remember that Turkey has taken in 2 million refugees—but getting children back into school and progress on effective border control. The package now in place needs to be very carefully delivered not only by the EU, but by Turkey itself in terms of how it uses that investment.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position she has taken in this crisis. I urge her to continue to put the emphasis on the refugee camps, which will have a big destabilisation effect in places such as Jordan. I wonder, given the expertise of her Department, whether she can say a little more about the technical assistance she is providing to Greece.
Justine Greening
It is in several different areas. Part of it is more Home Office-related assistance on border management, and part of it is humanitarian, working through UNHCR and, latterly, assisting UNICEF on child protection. Although we often focus on the amounts of aid we are giving, the most effective aid is often technical assistance, which is very cost-effective and highly effective in terms of outcomes.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right. Solving this crisis will require a co-ordinated approach across Europe. Surely, however, it is now apparent that to get that co-ordinated approach, we have to have some acts of political leadership? Last year, 90,000 unaccompanied children registered and applied for asylum in Europe. Does that not demonstrate the modesty of the call for this country to take 3,000? Surely this is a time when the Government should say yes to that very modest call for political leadership.
Justine Greening
We have shown political leadership, not just in terms of the scale and the shaping of the humanitarian response in the region but in how we have responded to it closer to home. As I have said, Britain has done more than any country to provide support to refugees more broadly. As I set out to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), we have done a huge amount of work to support unaccompanied children. Many Parliaments across Europe will be debating this issue, but few will be able to be as proud as the UK, given the work across government and the support being provided by so many British people to refugees in the region and to those arriving in Europe. I can reassure him, as I did my hon. Friend, that we are working very hard on the issue of unaccompanied children. We are absolutely playing our role.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am really proud of the fact that this country is the biggest financial contributor in Europe to dealing with this crisis—a point that is too easily dismissed by Opposition parties. However, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact is far less sanguine about the contribution of the European Union. What can my right hon. Friend do to put pressure on her interlocutors to ensure that some of the money that the EU gives to loony projects is diverted to assist in this crisis within our own European borders?
Justine Greening
As my hon. Friend probably knows, I am what I would call an aid disciplinarian. That probably comes from my innate chartered accountant perspective, which means I always need to see effective projects that are well run and deliver value for money. That is absolutely what we have been pressing for and working with the European Union to do. Our push has essentially been to see the EU mirror the UK strategy on doing more effective work in the affected regions and see it step up to the plate on managing this crisis closer to home, which is what today’s announcement seems to be about. It is good to see the EU starting to move in the right direction. Of course, we took further steps at the London conference a few weeks ago, which we also welcomed.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is hard to overstate the national and regional dangers from Greece becoming a giant refugee camp. That is all the more the case because the refugee crisis cannot be disentangled from the crisis in the Greek economy and infrastructure. When I visited a refugee camp on one of the islands, I found that the island had already lost its healthcare service, as have so many other islands. In addition to the humanitarian assistance, which is very welcome, what discussions are the British Government having within the EU to discuss the state of the Greek economy, which is very heavily dependent on tourism? There is a risk that the Greek economy will implode under the pressure of a growing refugee crisis this year.
Justine Greening
At the ministerial meetings I attend as a Development Minister, we discuss the challenges that we face much closer to home. We should learn from what has happened in Jordan and Lebanon—that we should not expect countries to be able to cope on their own when they suddenly see huge numbers of people flowing in that they were not expecting. It is not simply a matter of financial pressures because pressures are placed on local communities. That is why the UK has done a lot and why I welcome the announcement that we think is coming from the EU today. This is the right thing to do for the refugees that are arriving. As has been said, it has taken some time for the penny to drop across Europe about what needs to be done closer to home, but I am proud of the work that the UK has done in trying to make sure that the levels of support that people need are now being put in place.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British public want to help and welcome it being provided for genuine refugees, particularly the women and children from minority groups? However, many are concerned at the arrival of large numbers of fit and able young men who have left their families behind, often claiming to be younger than they are, often having cultural attitudes towards women and gays that are unacceptable in Europe and often coming here for economic reasons. Do we not also need to send out a message that those people should not be able to come here in large numbers?
Justine Greening
I think there are two elements here. One part is responding to the humanitarian crisis itself. As my hon. Friend says, a number of genuine refugees caught up in the Syrian crisis are coming over, but there is also the crisis in Iraq, particularly with the impact of Daesh in northern Iraq, which has also led to refugees coming over. As he points out, another part of the problem is economic migrants. That is why it is so important to have strong processes in place to deal with refugees and asylum cases, but also with migration. As a London MP, I often deal with immigration casework, so I am perhaps as familiar with it as any other MP in this Parliament. Having strong processes in place to work through those different cases is vital. That is why, despite the emotional pressures, we are right to stick to that plan and stick to our strategy—that Britain should have the ability to set its own rules on migration, which is why we are not in the Schengen area.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Apart perhaps from a couple of contributions from Tory Members, the Secretary of State will have heard a cross-party consensus today that we are dealing with a humanitarian and a refugee crisis. There is a great deal of cross-party support for a friendly reception for the efforts made in region by the Government. Will the right hon. Lady therefore respond by accepting that the scale of the issue we now face requires a re-examination of the scale of the bilateral support to Greece? Secondly, without a meaningful contribution to the resettlement—and I mean a meaningful contribution—will it not be more difficult to get the solidarity across Europe that will be required to deal with this issue properly?
Justine Greening
As ever, we will continue to make sure that the support we give to all the countries affected by the crisis is at a level that we think is sensible. As I have set out, Britain has, frankly, done as much as any in helping refugees who are arriving in Europe. That is why a significant proportion of what we provide has been given to countries such as Greece where the refugees have arrived. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s second point about our approach to relocation. I think our approach is the sensible approach, one that is increasingly recognised across Europe as sensible and pragmatic.
My final point to the right hon. Gentleman is that the people we are able to relocate are the most vulnerable people from the region, those identified by agencies like the UNHCR as needing to be removed from the region in order to get back on with their lives and receive the support they need to do so. I think we are right to focus on the most vulnerable people affected by this crisis; that will continue to be our approach.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Government for the leadership they have shown in making us the biggest donor of humanitarian support in region, after the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the refugees from the middle east are the victims of terrorists and traffickers, so taking into the United Kingdom the refugees who have already reached the safety of Europe is simply playing into the hands of those evil traffickers who are exploiting people so appallingly?
Justine Greening
I think my hon. Friend is right. In the end, there is no getting away from the fact that overwhelmingly people want to stay in the region where they had their home and grew up—the area with which they are most familiar and where their closest family is likely to be based. I think the failure of the international community to do enough is what has led to the sorts of flows that we are now seeing. That is why the London conference a month ago was so important. It is also why we need to see more countries doing more in the region. We should not lose sight of the need for more international leadership, matching that of Britain, in the region so that refugees can be supported in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. They have been generous, but they are saying that this is an extremely difficult situation for them to cope with. Let us not lose sight of that.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Greece is, of course, a great country and an important and long-standing ally of ours. The people of Greece, however, are still suffering badly from the financial crisis, and the refugee and humanitarian crisis is pushing them to the brink. Help from the EU has so far been slow and inadequate. Despite what has been said today, does the Secretary of State truly believe that the EU strategy to give Greece the proper help that is needed is in place? Does she not agree that a lot more needs to be done?
Justine Greening
As ever, it is all about today’s announcement, which we understand to be about €700 million for the next three years, and about making sure that that money is invested sensibly. It is important that Greece itself is willing and able to work with NGOs on the ground and with the UNHCR so that the best work can be done. One of the biggest changes affecting Jordan and Lebanon that has enabled us to help to create more jobs was the important decision of those countries to allow refugees to have work permits. That enabled us to do more to help them get the jobs so that they were able to support themselves. It is important that we are able to work effectively with the Greek authorities to make the most of the additional resourcing and investment so that we can help people as much as we possibly can.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I fear that Members on both sides of the House are failing to acknowledge two pertinent facts. Not only has the European Union visited penury and misery on the people of Greece because of its cruel monetary policy, but that has been compounded by the fact that its largest member has completely disregarded, in a high-handed and arrogant way, the Dublin protocols that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier.
May I ask what efforts the Government are making to distinguish between economic migrants and refugees, and—returning to an undertaking that the Prime Minister gave me before Christmas—what special efforts are being made to target our resources at the persecuted minorities in the middle east, particularly Christians?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend has, in fact, raised three issues. First, we are working with the International Organisation for Migration to secure better data and evidence relating to the flows of migrants and refugees. Secondly, we are not in the Schengen area, which means that we can more readily make decisions on how to deal with the various people who seek to come to Britain, depending on whether they are claiming asylum, seeking refugee status or, indeed, just wanting to come here to work as migrants.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issue of certain minorities. I had a chance to go to Irbil, where I met, among others, Christian minorities who had been persecuted and caught up in the Iraqi crisis and the territorial gains that Daesh was making in Iraq at the time. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are very conscious of the need not to lose sight of the groups who have been most affected by the crisis. We often talk of its impact on children, but, as he rightly points out, whole communities have been targeted in some areas.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
There should be concern about the impact on Greece’s social structure of the double blow that it has experienced: first the effect of membership of the euro on its economy, and now the chaotic immigration policy that is being pursued by the EU.
Many Syrian leaders who are looking to the future are saying that people should be kept as close to Syria as possible, in well-organised camps, and not thrown into the hands of the traffickers who wish to smuggle them into Europe. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Governments of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey about the resources that they need in order to sustain that number of people in their own countries, and what hope has she of persuading her EU partners to join the United Kingdom in stumping up some money to support those efforts?
Justine Greening
We have had many discussions with the countries that have experienced the biggest flows of refugees over recent years, particularly the ones that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
I think the London conference on Syria was especially important when it came to persuading other countries to step up to the plate alongside Britain, and to do more to help provide the resources that are needed by countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. As the hon. Gentleman will know, at the end of last year the United Nations appeal was just over 50% funded, but following the London conference, only five weeks into this year, some 70% to 80% of this year’s needs have already been resourced. Nevertheless, we still need other countries to do more. The crisis will be ongoing for some time, and unfortunately, while I was delighted by the success of the Syria conference—the largest ever amount was pledged in a single day—it should be seen as the beginning, not the end, of the international community’s better response.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets are increasing the risks to lone children, and, sadly, also increasing their price tag for trafficking purposes. I saw that for myself in Calais on Monday, and the situation is the same in Greece. There is no effective identification and processing of lone children, especially those with connections to the United Kingdom. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the welcome 28 January commitment to increase the safety of lone children in Europe, as well as in conflict zones, will help the desperately vulnerable children who have no hope of access to the safe legal routes to which she has referred, and prevent them from getting into the hands of traffickers?
Justine Greening
I hope I can provide that reassurance, which is, in a sense, twofold. First, it is about enabling vulnerable children in the region to be relocated when that is necessary, working with UN agencies. Secondly, it is about the £10 million fund that we established to make better and stronger identification possible so that we can get children into the system. We are providing funds to ensure that children receive the kind of specialist protection that they need, can be helped to understand how to deal with the situation in which they have found themselves, and can be given trauma counselling. Even when we have reached an “end point” in our work to help unaccompanied children, they will often need further support in order to be able to get on with their lives effectively because of the experiences that they have been through, and the United Kingdom is ensuring that, whenever possible, we can provide that as well.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The people traffickers are benefiting from a clear Russian policy: to weaken resolve in Syria, to create a crisis in Europe and weaken our humanitarian values, and to weaken neighbouring states such as Jordan, Lebanon, Greece and Turkey. Last week, Saudi Arabia told the Defence Committee that it had offered visas to Syrian families, allowing them to move in with their own family members. It has offered them work permits, and opportunities for education, employment and healthcare. Why can we not do the same for Syrian refugees who have clear links with the United Kingdom?
Justine Greening
We have a relocation scheme, and the Dublin convention provides routes enabling people with clear links to the UK to come here. Ultimately, however, we need a co-ordinated and managed approach to migration. We are not in the Schengen area—for all the right reasons, as we can see—and it is right for Britain to have the controls and rules that enable us to manage the flows of people coming into the UK.
The hon. Lady mentioned people smugglers and the impact of bombing. Although we obviously hope that the ceasefire holds, it is important for us not to take steps that would simply play into the hands of the criminals who are gaining from the crisis, and that is why we have taken the approach that we have.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I, too, am proud of the leading role in the provision of aid for refugees that the United Kingdom has played, not just over the last few months but for many years. What requests has Greece made directly to the UK for help? I know that the UK has been seeking a comprehensive EU response for months, but what more can we do to put pressure on the rest of the EU to help with the daily basic needs of the refugees in Greece, and at least try to alleviate some of the burden?
Justine Greening
We have humanitarian advisers in Greece who have been helping to ensure that the Greek strategy, including the way in which camps are being set up, is as effective as possible. We have also worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. More recently, we have helped to provide child protection officers. The situation on the ground is complex, but I think we should recognise that the UK has helped to provide not only life-saving and core humanitarian support, but the technical assistance that can help the Greek authorities to do a more effective job themselves. I agree that it is welcome that the European Union is now responding with additional resources to mirror the kind of work that the UK has been doing, because that support has been badly needed.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the very last thing that families fleeing beheadings, bombs and barbarism need is to face barbed wire, tear gas and rubber bullets on their arrival in the EU? Will she please, as a matter of urgency, urge her Government to take a much more constructive role within Europe and to help to implement the EU action plan on migration?
Justine Greening
We are taking a constructive, proactive approach within the European Union. We are not part of the Schengen area, but that does not prevent us from clearly setting out our views on a more effective way of dealing with this crisis. Speaking in my capacity as Secretary of State for International Development, I think that one of the most important elements to that response has been to tackle the root cause of what is making people feel that they have no alternative to putting their lives in the hands of the people smugglers. That involves doing a better job of supporting those people in the region, closer to home and closer to their families.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
We certainly welcome the financial commitments that the UK Government have announced and are already providing. I echo the calls for the rest of the international community to match those commitments, but the fact is that no amount of money will ever provide enough schools, hospitals and homes to enable the 4 million-plus refugees to settle permanently in the small number of countries that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned earlier, given that those countries are already looking after millions of refugees.
Information from Eurostat shows that, relative to the population of each country, Greece receives twice as many asylum applications as the United Kingdom, while Italy receives two and half times the number and the EU as a whole receives five times the number. Some countries, such as Hungary and Sweden, received 30 times as many asylum applications as the United Kingdom does. Does the Secretary of State agree that those figures destroy once and for all the myth that the refugee camps are full of people whose chosen destination is the United Kingdom?
Justine Greening
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, we have an ambition to get every Syrian child who is missing school because of this crisis back into school by the end of the forthcoming academic year. One of the key outcomes of the London conference on Syria was to get the funding for those plans. We know that we can achieve this because we have already helped half the children to get back into school. We now need to finish the job. More broadly, he talked about the intentions of refugees arriving in the EU. The reality is that there are large Syrian diasporas in Germany and Sweden, and many of the people arriving on the shores of Greece might want to join their families in those countries. In the end, however, we need a more co-ordinated approach that recognises that countries such as the UK are not in the Schengen area and that we want to take our own decisions. There is no getting away from the fact that as a last resort people are putting themselves in the hands of people smugglers, but their first choice is almost always to stay in the region. Following the Syria conference in London, we need more action taken internationally to deliver on that.
Points of Order
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that on 2 December last year, the Prime Minister came to the House and sought permission to extend into Syria the RAF airstrikes that were taking place in Iraq. In the motion, he undertook to provide quarterly progress reports to set out the impact of the strikes on Daesh’s finances, its fighters and its weapons. The basis on which the support of the House was given was that we would receive those regular updates, which would also tell us whether there had been any UK involvement in civilian casualties. A quarter has now elapsed since 2 December, and I seek your guidance as to whether the Prime Minister has sought to provide such a progress report to the House and, if not, what action I could take to ensure that he does.
Mr Speaker
A very brief, and I hope accurate, mental calculation suggests to me that there have been 101 days since the date to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is perfectly possible that the Government are contemplating such a statement, and if they are not doing so, it is possible that they might do so as soon as the news of his point of order wings its way towards the relevant departmental Minister, or even to the Prime Minister himself. If that transpires not to be the case, the right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member and a former Deputy Leader of the House and he will be well aware that he could pursue the matter at business questions, for example, or through the use, on other days beyond today, of the device that can help to secure a ministerial presence. Knowing him as I do, I know that he will utilise all the weapons at his disposal.
Mr Speaker
The day would not be complete without hearing a point of order from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).
Alec Shelbrooke
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your support and advice. You will know that last week we had an important urgent question about mental health, and you will recall that when I asked a question on that occasion, I commented on the fact that the writers of “Coronation Street” had done a great service to those with mental health issues by addressing the stigma and other relevant issues. It will not have escaped your notice that the creator and original writer of “Coronation Street”, Mr Tony Warren, has sadly passed away at the age of 79. Is there any way in which it could be noted, through you in the Chair, that the contribution to society as well as to entertainment of great pioneers such as Tony Warren has led to a great improvement in British culture and a greater understanding of our country?
Mr Speaker
My feeling is that the hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation. He has achieved his mission. Moreover, he knows that he has done so. No real contribution from me is required, other than to acknowledge that he has paid fulsome and gracious tribute to someone who proved to be a change-maker. I am sorry to learn of that gentleman’s passing, but he has been honoured by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell today.
Employment Status (Review)
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the establishment by the Secretary of State of an independent review of the operation of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to the determination of employment status and dispute resolution mechanisms for employers and employees relating thereto; and for connected purposes.
My Bill calls for something that is long overdue: a full, independent review into the law surrounding self-employed workers and their rights. The need for this was demonstrated by the collapse of City Link in my constituency and those of other Members. The delivery firm went into administration just over a year ago, with employees being informed on Christmas day 2014. Roughly 2,700 people, along with 1,000 contractors, lost their jobs. Those contractors, and the situation that was forced upon them, form the inspiration for this Bill.
A number of concerns were expressed about City Link’s collapse and about how it might have been handled better. It provoked a joint report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee—a report on the impact on employment of the closure of City Link was published in March 2015. City Link viewed its drivers as self-employed. The drivers provided their own vans, but were required to wear the company’s livery and were not permitted to work for anyone else. Those drivers were employees in all but name.
The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee stated:
“Contractors and sub-contractors providing drivers for City Link have been hit particularly hard by its closure.”
That is because they were unsecured creditors and were unlikely to receive the vast majority of the wages they were owed. The administrators’ statement of proposals found that they could expect to receive less than 2p in the pound. The Select Committee further noted that the financial difficulties of the contractors were worsened by the fact that they had been encouraged to take on additional staff and vehicles and to work longer hours in the lead-up to Christmas, despite the doubts over the company’s future. Gordon Martin, of the RMT, told the Committee that, due to assurances from City Link:
“People, through the business, went out and bought additional vans to put on the road. This is a human tragedy across the piece. People are thousands of pounds in debt. Who knows how they are going to pay?”
That context is important in outlining the vulnerable position subcontractors can be in when a company goes into administration. The underlying issue here that I wish to raise is bogus “self-employment”. The RMT told the Committee that the self-employed drivers were
“tied to the company; they have to wear the uniform and they have to use the company livery on the vehicles…That is the way the market is, unfortunately, but they are employees by any definition, other than the fact that they have an arrangement in place where they seem to be divorced from the company but are employed by it.”
Crucially, the Select Committee accepted the RMT’s analysis that this was direct employment in everything but name.
Why does this matter? All rights under employment law are contingent on employment status, be it as an employee, worker or someone self-employed. The self-employed have few rights. They are not entitled to receive sick pay, holiday pay or the national minimum wage, and are responsible for their own taxation. Workers have a number of basic rights, including the right to the minimum wage and annual leave. Employees have the same rights as workers, plus additional rights, including the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to redundancy pay. An employee is an individual who works under a contract of employment, which means that employment rights turn on whether or not the contract under which a person works is a contract of employment.
Self-employed persons are instead regarded in law as providing a service for a customer or client. The distinction is often described as the difference between a “contract of service” and a “contract for services”. The question that needs addressing is how to make sure that people are on the type of contract that accurately reflects their work. I am not in any way opposed to people being self-employed—I am sure that in many situations it is extremely useful. What I object to is people being denied the right type of contract for their work and therefore not getting the employment rights to which they should be entitled. The difficulty is: how does someone know whether they are on the right type of contract? The Select Committee found that these drivers were employees in all but name, but that is no consolation to those affected. It should not be so difficult to determine whether a contract is an employment contract or not, or for someone to find out whether they are on the appropriate contract for their work.
Bogus self-employment is when an individual is treated by a company as being self-employed but their relationship with the company exhibits the features of an employment relationship. If the company says the individual is self-employed and the individual says he is actually an employee, there is only one way to settle the issue and that is by going to court. A contractor who wishes to challenge their employment status has to go to court, which is both arduous and expensive. Furthermore, the question of employment status is one of the issues most widely litigated on in employment law.
The House of Commons Library has kindly supported me in understanding the legal tests developed by courts and tribunals. Substantial criteria are involved, each of which is subject to volumes of case law, and this level of complexity in the law worsens the problem. An individual might suspect that he is an employee but would be unlikely to know whether or not he is, because the law is so complex. That means that some companies may be wrongly categorising employees as self-employed persons, depriving them of employment rights.
At the time of the City Link collapse I met the then Business Secretary, who, to his credit, was aware of this difficulty. Let me quote at length what he told the Select Committee:
“Before the City Link issue came up, I had initiated a thorough investigation of employment status, which we are now undertaking…there is what appears to be a growing number of people who are not genuinely self-employed but have, in some sense, fallen through the cracks. We are trying at the moment to get a handle on…how, at least through legislation, we might address that problem. We certainly acknowledge that it exists. It is a part of this wider debate…I would hope my successor, whoever it is, takes this seriously, because there is a gap.”
He then announced the review in October 2014. It appears that this review is internal, and we still do not know the outcome. In March 2015, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the then Minister responded by saying that
“a number of teams from across the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been feeding into the employment status review.”
Yet, in answer to a parliamentary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) only this month, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that
“officials from HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will form a Cross Government Working Group for Employment Status early this year.”
I can only ask this: what have they been doing for the past year?
It is time for a proper review, led by experts in employment law, and I suggest that a leading employment lawyer is appointed to chair the review. We need greater clarity as to the criteria for “self-employment”. We need a forum where individuals can query or challenge their employment status without having to go to court, and I suggest that an ombudsman or a Government agency might be appropriate. We need penalties for companies that intentionally use bogus self-employment contracts, and we need to give full consideration to whether the rights and support we provide to the self-employed are adequate in today’s world.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Jim Cunningham, Chris Stephens, Colleen Fletcher, Mr Geoffrey Robinson, Mr Dennis Skinner and Steve McCabe present the Bill.
Mr Jim Cunningham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 146).
Estimates Day
Estimates 2015-16
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
The Science Budget
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
We hold a position of great responsibility in the global scientific community; as a science powerhouse, not only do we set the bar for the quality of research, but we have a duty to take care that our spending and structural decisions do more than merely maintain the status quo. As we face down a century that is filled with infinitely complex societal challenges—ageing, chronic and complex illnesses and climate change—we have to acknowledge that we are in the hot seat. Our scientists and innovators in academia and industry will be at the forefront of the discoveries that will not only underpin the productivity of our economy, but ensure the sustainability of our way of life.
If we get our spending priorities, regulatory frameworks and immigration policy wrong, we will be on the wrong side of history. For that reason, the Science and Technology Committee chose spending on science and innovation as our first inquiry and ensured that we reported in time to make recommendations ahead of the spending review. It is also why we asked for this debate today, ahead of the Budget, to press on recommendations that have not yet been taken up, although we are grateful for the Government’s response.
Our findings received widespread support. The Times and the Financial Times published editorials endorsing our call to increase R and D investment. Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, joined scientists up and down the country when he said that our report
“hits the nail squarely on the head.”
The evidence that we received was clear:
“We punch well above our weight”
in science and innovation.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency houses one of the centres for fusion technology. In the context of her remarks, I wonder what she has recommended in relation to taking that forward and helping to develop it.
Nicola Blackwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be proud of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy. I have visited it on more than one occasion. One of the fundamental proposals that we have made is to increase R and D investment in the UK. If he will listen a little further, he will hear exactly what we have proposed to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in that particular area of research.
With just 0.9% of the world’s population and 3.2% of the world’s R and D spending, we produce 16% of the world’s most cited papers and hold more than 10% of the world’s patents. We have produced 80 Nobel laureates. We have four of the world’s top six universities—I will, if I may, boast that one of them is in my constituency—and we attract more inward investment for research than any other part of Europe. However, it is not enough to be proud of the exceptional impact of our research base; we must also be mindful of the pivotal role that it plays in the goals that we have set ourselves as a nation.
As a Committee, we welcomed the Chancellor’s statement protecting the science budget in real terms, increasing the annual capital budget to £1.1 billion and maintaining the innovation budget at flat cash—albeit with £165 million becoming loans. We are also grateful to the Business Secretary, who gave evidence to the Committee in January, for reassuring us that not only would the ring fence for the science budget remain, but no additional organisations, programmes or spending lines could be added to that budget.
Although we welcomed that assurance, we would like to see those allocations for ourselves. The Business Secretary assured us that those allocations would be finalised in mid-February; it is now March and I am told that the negotiations are still ongoing. Will the Minister please tell the House what the hold-up is, and exactly when those allocations will be made public? We are concerned that as excellent as our research base is, commercialisation, though improving, remains sub-optimal. Crucially, despite the recent spending settlement, UK investment in R and D is internationally low at a time when our competitors are increasing R and D investment.
At 1.7% of GDP, the UK remains 12th among 28 member states for R and D investment; in 2013, Germany invested about 3%, China about 2%, and Israel and Korea about 4.2%. There is a reason why all our competitors are increasing their R and D while we lag behind. It is that R and D investment is proven to increase productivity and innovation growth. Science and innovation spending is not a subsidy, but a strategic investment that creates jobs, increases productivity and attracts inward investment.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that research, pure research and discovering inventions often lead to some of the greatest creations? There were decades between the discovery of the electron and when we were able to use it, but it now runs every part of our lives today.
Nicola Blackwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I often like to quote Lord Porter, who says that there are only two kinds of research: that which has been exploited and that which has yet to be exploited. That is why we must ensure that the entire pipeline from fundamental research all the way through to commercialisation is working at peak capacity.
We must be mindful of the fact that, between 2000 and 2008, 51% of productivity growth came from innovation. We know that Government investment in research crowds in private sector investment, because the latest BIS analysis tells us so. It shows that £1 of public investment will increase private funding by between £1.13 and £1.60. It shows that firms that persistently invest in R and D have 13% higher productivity than those that do not. It shows that every £1 of public investment in R and D raises private sector R and D productivity by 20p each year in perpetuity.
Our top recommendation to Government was to produce a long-term road map to increase public and private R and D investment up to the 3% EU target. That would sit well alongside the national innovation plan, which I understand the Business Secretary is proposing. We are not alone in calling for that increase; other Select Committees and institutions have done so before us. In fact, it was BIS’s own analysis in 2014 that called for the UK to increase R and D investment up to 2.9%, which is the average of our competitors, commenting that those competitors do not appear to get poor returns on their investments.
If the evidence is so compelling, what would such a road map look like? Based on international analysis, if the UK were to invest 3% of GDP in R and D, we would expect a third of that to come from public spending. Policies and the road map would need to be a combination of increasing Government R and D and stimulating private sector investment beyond the life of this Parliament. Although protecting the science budget proper and the ring fence in this Parliament is a good start, we also believe that the policies need to protect the departmental R and D and to make it more transparent and necessary. Departmental R and D has plummeted in some Departments in the past decades; reversing that trend can only lead to better government and will also create all the virtuous effects that we saw in the previous Parliament.
We also need to target private sector investments to scale-ups. The UK has become a country with lots of start-ups, but not enough companies make it through the so-called “mid-cap gap” to become £1 billion valuation quoted companies. Incentives for early-stage investors to build and stay in companies are needed. Options might include increasing the enterprise investment scheme threshold to cover £100 million companies.
There could also be incentives for investors to hold on to eligible research-intensive companies for longer and not to sell them. Those incentives could include reintroducing the capital gains tax taper relief to reward 10 to 15-year exits from investments in such companies. There could also be incentives for pension and institutional fund investors to invest in research-intensive companies, as they tend to have a longer term outlook. A programme such as a capital gains tax break on the dividend returns for funds in proportion to the percentage of the fund that is invested in a research-intensive company might be an option.
We could also look to our immigration policy for possible opportunities. Tier 1 investor visas require individuals to invest £2 million in the UK for the duration of their stay. The Migration Advisory Committee has recommended that those sums should be invested in the public good, such as in hospitals and schools. There is an opportunity here to assemble a portfolio of investment for research to meet that criterion so that our science, technology, engineering and maths ecosystem could benefit from that investment.
The immigration skills charge is a final option that we could propose. We urge the Minister to consider an exemption for the STEM PhD-level certificate of sponsorship from the immigration skills charge. That would boost the STEM PhD employers. Furthermore, PhD-level exemptions already exist in the visa system in recognition of the need to recruit for these posts from the best in the world.
Those ideas are just a starting point, but our message is clear: we believe that increasing UK R and D investment to a competitive level needs to be a matter of national priority, and a long-term road map is the right mechanism to achieve it. Getting the science spending right is about not just how much we spend, but how we spend it.
We also received worrying evidence that not all of our capital projects were operating at full capacity due to inadequate resource allocations. The ISIS neutron source worth £400 million at Harwell is operating for only about 128 days instead of an optimal 180 days due to insufficient operational costs. Similar problems were reported elsewhere, including in the Catapult network. Although we welcome the Government’s commitment to the Catapult network, which is working well, we urge them to consolidate and fully fund the existing network before expanding it. It is simply wasteful not to ensure that we are putting enough resource into the system so that we can realise the full value from all capital investments. That is why we called for a review of all capital and resource allocations to ensure that all future capital investments are allocated the resource necessary fully “to sweat our assets”.
The Business Secretary accepted that problem when he appeared before us, and he assured us that a review was under way to ensure that the situation did not happen again. He committed to send the Committee the results of that review, but we have not received them, so I hope that the Minister can update us on progress today.
The Business Secretary identified France and Finland as the inspiration for the introduction of innovation loans. The Committee would be interested to hear what metrics the Government used to conclude that loans were effective for stimulating innovation. We understand that the Government intend to pilot this scheme. As a Committee, we can only commend a scientific approach to measuring the impacts of different types of instruments before settling on a specific grants/loan mix, if that is the intention, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister at the outset what hard evidence there already is on which financial instruments work best and what his plans are to build on that evidence before introducing such loans.
Finally, we were crystal clear that on no account must the Government’s proposals for reorganisation of the research councils and higher education undermine the dual funding system or the Haldane principle. In his evidence to the Committee, the Secretary of State said that there would be one response from Government covering Dowling, Nurse and the higher education Green Paper. He could not give us a timeline for that response, however. Given the far-reaching impact of these proposals and the current uncertainty surrounding the Government’s intentions, I hope the Minister can be a little more definitive today. Will he please not only say when the Government will publish their response, but clarify a number of points?
First, do the Government plan to adopt Nurse’s proposal for a ministerial committee and, if so, what form will it take? Will it be a single Minister meeting Research Councils UK, or will it involve Ministers from across key Departments? This will clearly have an important impact in terms of the politicisation of funding decisions. Secondly, can the Minister give us at least some sense of the major concerns raised in the Green Paper consultation process—in particular regarding merging the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s science budget allocation role with Research Councils UK? What specific measures are being proposed to ensure that the dual support system will be safeguarded if these changes go ahead? Finally, what additional costs does he anticipate the implementation of Dowling, Nurse and the Green Paper will incur and will those have to be found from within the existing science budget settlement?
Our goal in this Budget and Parliament should be to unleash the full potential of every local economy in Britain. In an increasingly knowledge-based economy, the pursuit of excellence in research and innovation is at the very heart of effective strategies for sustainable growth, increasing productivity and creating high value jobs. It is not enough just to aim for stability—for maintaining the status quo—especially if policies and spending decisions are based more closely on templates of the past than on analysis of future challenges.
Globalisation means that a single disruptive technology can create a worldwide market shift in what seems like an instant, and our STEM ecosystem needs to be the most agile and responsive in the world if we are to compete. However, we will achieve that agility only if we recognise that we are operating in a global market at home as well as abroad. Some 25% of university research income comes from overseas, largely the EU. Some 50% of business R and D in the UK is from firms headquartered overseas, and R and D from abroad has grown by 59% in recent years. A quarter of top researchers operating in the UK are not British nationals.
Investors and talent need to see the Government instil confidence in the research base, but with the Green Paper, the Nurse review and the upcoming pilots of innovation loan systems, we are sending signals of turbulence and uncertainty. It is time for the Government to step up and make it crystal clear that the UK’s science and innovation is built on a rock-solid foundation. It is time for the Government to end uncertainty over Nurse, Dowling and Green Paper reforms and set out their direction, and it is time for them to demonstrate commitment to creating stability and certainty for science, with a long-term road map for increasing public and private R and D to competitive levels. In that way, we would supercharge the proven, stabilising effects of the ring fence and capital commitment, capture large-scale inward investment and secure our status as a bona fide science superpower.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. The manner in which she is steering that Committee towards practical added-value recommendations is exemplary and superb, and the manner in which she steered the House through her recommendations this afternoon was astonishingly good, too. I am in the weird position of agreeing with every word she said, so I will not take too much of the House’s time.
The hon. Lady was particularly strong, if I may say so, when she spoke about what a pivotal role science plays in future economic and productivity growth, and given my Select Committee’s priorities, I was particularly interested in her point about start-ups. It is relatively easy to start a business in this country, but scaling that up so that we have very large, innovative and successful firms employing a large number of people is a major challenge for this Parliament. I hope that our two Select Committees can work together closely to provide the join-up that is needed.
The hon. Lady mentioned that science has never been more crucial to our status as a modern economic nation. I agree. We need innovative and successful firms creating wealth and employment on the back of science and research and development. We are here now, in the 21st century, on the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution: the first, in the 18th century, used water and steam power to mechanise production; the second, in the early 20th century, used electric power to create mass production; the third, in the late 20th century, used electronics and information technology to automate production, unleash digital and revolutionise the means of communication.
This fourth industrial revolution, moving at an exponential pace, is astonishing. The technologies that this revolution is unleashing, such as the internet of things, autonomous vehicles, materials science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, energy storage, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, will disrupt almost every industry in almost every country, and will disrupt society as a whole. Science and technology are the foundations of this revolution, and the choice in the future will be stark. Countries that embrace and invest in science will be the winning nations of the future; those that do not will fall behind in economic growth and living standards.
This is why, as the hon. Lady pointed out, it is a matter of concern that we have lagged behind spend by our competitors on science and research and development for much of the past 30 years. As she said, what we do spend, we seem to spend very efficiently and effectively. We punch well above our weight, but we need to think about the volume of that value, as well as what we are doing with it. We have spent just over 2% of GDP on R and D just once in the past 30 years. That was in 1986, and we have never again reached that level. Spend has declined steadily over that period to reach a long-term average of about 1.6% or 1.7% of our GDP. We are below the EU average for R and D spend as a proportion of our economy.
The Russell Group has pointed out that in terms of the level of R and D intensity of the top 22 countries listed by the OECD, the UK has the lowest level of investment. Our investment has declined, while our competitors such as Korea, Germany, the US and even Japan have increased the share of their economy spent on research and development. As is mentioned in the hon. Lady’s report, Imperial College London has said that our investment as a proportion of GDP is about 1.72%, but China increased its share of R and D investment from 1.3% in 2005 to 1.98%; France increased its share from 2.11% in 2005 to 2.26% in 2012; and Germany increased its share from 2.51% in 2005 to 2.92% in 2012. The US also increased its investment in the same period from 2.51% of GDP to 2.79%. Imperial College, giving evidence to the hon. Lady’s Select Committee, said that the choice was stark:
“Without increased investment in R&D, therefore, the UK risks losing its position at the forefront of research globally, particularly given the rapid rate of advance in scientific research and the intense levels of international competition.”
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend concerned that where the Government attempt to support innovation and R and D, the resources are very unevenly distributed? For example, from the Catapult programme, 9% of resources have gone to the midlands region, but 46% have gone to London and 22% to the south-east. Surely that is not the way to get the best out of the country.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are spending a pound of public money, what do we want to get out of that and where do we get most bang for our buck? If the Government are serious about rebalancing the economy and making sure that prosperity is not just in London and the south-east but spread across the country, projects such as the midlands engine and the northern powerhouse need to have that scientific base in order to boost investment, research and development, and ultimately wealth creation as well.
The Russell Group has stated:
“The UK punches above its weight when it comes to excellence in research and higher education but this situation is unsustainable in the long-run without continued investment…The UK lags behind its main competitors in its level of investment in R&D and cannot continue to sustain its position as a world-leader without sufficient support.”
The EU has stated that to maintain future competitiveness in the face of unprecedented global competition, member states should be working towards spending 3% of GDP on research and development by 2020. As the hon. Lady said, the UK is a long way from that target. Only Finland, Sweden and Denmark already exceed that 3% target, yet it is vital for future productivity gains.
The hon. Lady and her Committee thought that the science issue was so important that it should be the focus of their first inquiry. We in the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee thought that the Government’s productivity plan, published in July 2015, was so important—indeed, the productivity gap is the major economic challenge of this Parliament—that we made it the focus of our first inquiry. We looked at spending on research and development and found that publicly funded R and D creates a strong “multiplier effect” and “crowds-in” private sector, charitable and inward investment, stimulating around 30% more self-investment from industry. Throughout our inquiry we heard strong evidence about just how much the public spending on R and D can draw in that private spend, as opposed to crowding it out. That model is operated by our major competitors around the world. Our report stated:
“We fully agree with the Science and Technology Committee’s recommendations on maintaining good R&D investment in the UK and echo that, if the Government is serious about productivity and competitiveness, it needs to commit to a total level of public and private R&D investment in the United Kingdom of three per cent of Gross Domestic Product. We therefore recommend that the Government produces a ‘roadmap’ for increasing the total level of public and private R&D investment in the United Kingdom to three per cent of Gross Domestic Product.”
The hon. Lady also mentioned the move from grants to loans. I worry about that, because it is a major concern. Decisions on capital investment are global, often decided by people around boardroom tables that are not in the UK, and it can be transferred anywhere. Those multinational corporations will be looking at a different dashboard of metrics when deciding where to put their latest investment. They will be looking at the flexibility of the labour market, tax rates and the ease of doing business. They will also be looking at the collaboration and partnerships between public and private, particularly in terms of R and D.
Other countries provide help and support to land that investment, and for the past 15 years we have had a major strength in that. The level of foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom has been excellent, but I think that we will put that at risk by moving from grants to loans. For example, why would Rolls-Royce invest in a factory here when Singapore, where the company already has a presence, could be offering a whole lot more? It is a case of making sure that we do not compromise our true strengths when it comes to grants and loans. Therefore, echoing what the hon. Lady said, what is the rationale for that? Is the Minister not aware that there is a huge risk in moving from grants to loans? What metrics will he use to advance this? Can we pilot it before it is rolled out across the economy?
The second risk that I would like to talk about is the proposal to merge Innovate UK and Research UK. The Catapult centres are working well, but they are relatively new organisations and they need a period of stability and certainty to become embedded in the ecosystem of science research and innovation. The merger will cause disruption and uncertainty and it will affect our science base. Will the Minister therefore outline for the House what the roadmap is to ensure that Innovate UK and Research UK can come together in a safe way?
The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee fully agrees with the Government on the need to improve productivity; we want to focus on that throughout our inquiries in this Parliament. Part of that is being able to spend for the long term and prioritising capital spend. Under the coalition Government, BIS’s capital departmental expenditure limits rose by about 84%, but under the spending review announced by the Chancellor two or three months ago it will fall by about 60%. The spending review stated quite explicitly:
“The government has chosen to prioritise its day to day spending on national security and key public services while investing more for the long term in capital infrastructure.”
The Government’s capital investment over the lifetime of this Parliament actually increases by about £12 billion, but BIS’s capital spend is being cut by 60%. The Ministry of Defence’s capital spend will increase, as will the capital spend of the Department for Communities and Local Government—a comparably sized Department—because of housing. The Department for Transport’s capital spend will double to £12 billion.
In contrast, the science budget will bob around throughout this Parliament at about £1.1 billion a year. I do not see that as a huge success. Actually, I see it as a failure in negotiations by BIS during the spending review, especially given that, as the Chancellor has said, science is a major priority for this Government. Since 2010 we have lost around £330 million in capital spend on science. It will take an awful lot of investment and prioritising to catch up, given that our competitors are moving ever further away. Therefore, does the Minister think that that was a disappointing negotiation? Given the priority and the pivotal role that science plays, does he think that we should be spending more on science in order to boost that long-term value for the economy?
Given the central importance of science as perhaps the principal driver of future economic growth, increased competitiveness and improved living standards, the relative decline in our science spend, regardless of whether we spend it wisely, should be a cause of enormous concern, and there should be a determination at a national level to reverse it. That is why I am really pleased that the hon. Lady has brought forward this debate. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to ensure that science is at the heart of our economic revival, now and in the future.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
This is a vital debate because it is about the future direction of our nation, and whether we will truly commit to the high-value, high-skills economy and invest in the areas that underpin that aspiration, such as core scientific research, or whether we will pay lip service to that aim while actually spending most of our energies maintaining the status quo. I suppose the reality will be a bit of both, but on this occasion I am pleased that the Government’s actions appear to be working towards backing up the aspiration. That is why I want to place on the record my thanks to the Chancellor and to the Minister for the announcement in the recent spending review of a real-terms increase in spending on science.
I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee in the previous Parliament. Indeed, I wanted to chair the Committee in this Parliament, but unfortunately that was not to be; my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) was successful, and I wish her and the Committee well in the coming years. Back in 2010 the Committee was very pleased that there was a flat cash settlement and a ring fence for the science budget. At the time, that seemed an excellent outcome, compared with the cuts being experienced by other Departments. Of course, the inflationary effect of that flat cash settlement was that by 2015 it had effectively dropped by 15%.
Therefore, the announcement of a real-terms, year-on-year increase in this Parliament was particularly welcome. As the Minister will recall stating:
“We are protecting science resource funding in real terms, at its current level £4.7 billion for the rest of the Parliament.”
That, along with the £6.9 billion science capital commitment, means a total investment of over £30 billion in science by 2020. That has to be welcomed by all. I believe that it sends a clear signal that science and innovation are at the heart of the Government’s long-term economic plans.
We know that Britain is a great place to do science. As we have heard from my hon. Friend, for every pound invested, we publish more papers and receive more citations than any other developed nation. We perform well above the average, producing 16% of top-quality published research findings, with just 3.2% of the world’s R and D expenditure.
How has that come to be the case, and how do we maintain it? There are a number of things that we have done in the past and that we are doing now. As a nation, we have a long and illustrious history of scientific endeavour, and we have made numerous significant scientific breakthroughs, as we heard from the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. We have created a scientific landscape that fosters creativity and an ability to think the unconventional and then go out and explore it. While money is important, therefore, this is not all about the cash; it is more about how it is used and how we direct—or do not direct—the way in which it is spent.
This Government and previous Governments have built on the achievements of the past for the benefit of our collective future. In the recent Russell Group report “Engines of growth”, a sample of 240 projects from the group’s universities delivered at least £21 billion of economic benefit—a hundredfold return on investment. That proves that public investment in R and D supports economic growth. However, that investment must be free from political interference, as enshrined in the Haldane principle—the idea that decisions about what to spend research funds on should be made by researchers, rather than politicians. That must continue.
It is right for the Government to support science, but they must not become too prescriptive or they will kill the very creativity that allows us to punch well above our weight. At present, the Government are getting it about right. Investing in Catapult centres is an excellent example of how the Government can give researchers a steer, without direct interference, and I hope that that will continue. It is right that we put up the money, but it is also right that it is the scientists who decide how it is spent.
We have an excellent record of investment in science in this country, but I want to highlight one or two things. The relationship between Parliament and the science community is as good as it has ever been. Yesterday we saw an excellent event—Voice of the Future—at which the Minister spoke. As part of that collaboration between the Royal Society of Biology and the Science and Technology Committee, young and early-career scientists were invited into Parliament to quiz those responsible for directing how Parliament and science interact. Another example of that relationship will come next week, when I host SET for BRITAIN—the science, engineering and technology for Britain competition—where young and early-career scientists will have an opportunity to highlight their work at a poster competition, with the potential to receive significant recognition and prizes.
As I said, the landscape for science looks good in the UK, and the Government are showing genuine support, but I cannot let this opportunity pass without highlighting one or two areas that still need addressing. As was highlighted in both previous contributions, the amount we spend on science in the UK is well below what our international partners spend. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, but all the other major economies are spending considerably more than us. We can take a simple step towards rectifying that by aiming to spend 0.7% of our GDP on R and D by 2020, rather spending 0.5%. That is a figure we have committed to spend in other areas, and we could certainly commit to spend it on science. We know that that makes sense, and we have seen how we get a return on that investment. I would like the Government and the Minister to take that thought away.
My final point is about how we inspire the next generation of scientists. In a recent report, the Royal Society identified a skills gap, noting that we will need 1 million new engineers, scientists and tech professionals by 2020. The Government are doing something through their apprenticeship programme to help fill that gap, but we need to do more to inspire young people to see science as a career for them. One way we could do that is by getting the Government to facilitate greater working between schools, the learned societies, the professional bodies and STEM businesses, so that we can take real-life examples of how science works in society into our educational establishments and inspire young people about science at an earlier age.
The settlement goes a long way towards ensuring that we continue to be an economic and scientific powerhouse, and I commend the Government for their actions.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
We meet for this debate at an auspicious moment. According to this morning’s Financial Times,
“Grey hairs, monobrows and poorly judged comb-overs could be consigned to history after research led by British scientists revealed how our genes affect hair growth on the human head and face.”
That, if evidence were needed, is a sign of the continuing health of British science. However, it takes funding for British basic science to produce publications that can, in time, lead to the wealth-creating, job-generating businesses of the future. I am, therefore, broadly supportive of the Government’s continuing commitment to the science budget, but there is much more we can do when it comes to Government support for science, for knowledge transfer and for greater private sector involvement in R and D.
First, however, let me set out some history. When the last Labour Government came to power in 1997—happy days—we found, as we always do, that the Conservative party had decimated the British science base. Laboratories were falling apart, basic funding was slashed, support for R and D was pathetic, and the space programme was in chaos—the usual. Over 13 years, primarily under the leadership of Science Minister Lord Sainsbury, and with the support of Chancellor Gordon Brown and investment from the Wellcome Trust, the Labour party rebuilt Britain’s science base.
The UK innovation investment fund was created to back technology entrepreneurs, the science research investment fund was created to tackle the backlog of under-investment in facilities, and the higher education innovation fund was created to incentivise universities to transfer their knowledge into industry. The result has been a golden age for British science, with great discoveries such as the Higgs boson; the Rosetta mission; an end to the brain drain; and world-class, well-resourced universities carrying out cutting-edge work.
Mr Iain Wright
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and the work Lord Drayson did was absolutely instrumental in those achievements. Does my hon. Friend agree that that 10-year science plan gave all institutions and companies the time they needed to invest with certainty and confidence, because the ecosystem was steady for the entire decade?
Tristram Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Science and Technology Committee report makes a point about the innovation lag, and the investment my hon. Friend talks about yielded extraordinary results afterwards. So successful was the Labour party’s science policy that the pressure group Save British Science had to go into liquidation—its work was done.
When the coalition Government came to power, they ring-fenced a flat-cash science budget. They cut the capital budget by 40% and then reversed the cut. Those were not the long-term, sustainable decisions our science base needs. Today we have heard that the capital part of the science budget stands at £1.1 billion a year, and that will be protected in real terms until 2021. However, I share the Science and Technology Committee’s concern about the UK falling behind our competitors in R and D investment. I agree with the Committee’s plans for a road map to take us towards R and D investment of 3% of GDP and up to the Euro norm. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) that spending on science is not a subsidy but an investment.
This limited debate offers us a broader opportunity to think about the role of the state in creating the wealth of tomorrow. A decent science policy should set out how a supportive, collaborative and inventive state can generate not only the basic science, but the knowledge transfer and institutions for innovation that are fundamental to a high-wage, high-skill economy. Wages for jobs in the knowledge economy are higher—in 2013, they were in fact 40% higher. If the knowledge economy made up one third of jobs in Britain, we would create an extra 2.4 million better-paid jobs.
While the Business Secretary is a market fundamentalist and a minimalist-state zealot—my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) spelled out brilliantly the failure of his negotiation strategies—and the Chancellor is eyeing up further spending cuts, I am very glad that the Science Minister has outed himself as a supporter of Mariana Mazzacato’s work on an entrepreneurial activist state. Publicly funded research and development has a strong multiplier effect in that it crowds in private sector, charitable and inward investment. We all know the stories of Stanford University and Xerox, and the National Science Foundation and Google. From hi-tech to bio-tech to nanotech to green-tech, we will succeed in these sectors only with a state committed to driving innovation, research and knowledge transfer.
Let me briefly lay out a few areas of concern. The first is how other Government Departments use their science budgets, where we have seen a real cut in terms of science expenditure. This money is not ring-fenced and there is very little strategic approach to how it is utilised. In the United States, departments use their money effectively for areas of strategic direction. We need a lot more of that across the UK Government.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) spelled out, the Government’s regional approach to science spending is a mess. I applaud the Chancellor’s investment in Manchester—a city that likes to think it was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, when we all know that Josiah Wedgwood pioneered that in Stoke-on-Trent, at Etruria. But beyond the Irwell, the level of investment in regional universities and laboratories, and indeed in the Catapult centres, is pathetic. In 2013, 52% of total UK R and D expenditure was in the south-east. The Government are pump-priming the silicon tech, silicon roundabout in Old Street, and the Olympic park in the east end, but it would do much more if it supported organisations such as the Lucideon research facility on ceramics in my constituency.
Thirdly, as the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) suggested, we need to work much harder on getting young people into science and technology subjects. I wish the Government would stop pretending that careers advice does not matter and get a grip on that area. We face a crisis in getting high-quality maths teachers into high-poverty areas in order to allow young people to pursue a career in science. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool suggested, we must also do something about supporting the growth and development of technicians.
Finally, while I do not wish to intrude on internal family disputations, it is clear that our place in Europe is absolutely fundamental for the continuing support of our science base. Only this week, 50 biotech and pharmaceutical chief executives reminded us of the importance of remaining inside the European Union if our life sciences sector is to continue to grow, saying:
“Not only would an exit from the EU negatively impact on the life sciences sector, but changing the current arrangement would lead to disruption, expense, and significant regulatory burdens.”
We have to make sure that we remain in a reformed European Union, but if we want to get more out of our investment into UK science, we also need much more concerted belief in, and support for, a truly entrepreneurial state.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, following the Committee’s report on the science budget.
Members will be aware that there has always been strong evidence for the link between spending on research and development and the productivity of our economy. The UK’s economic growth depends on its ability to innovate, and investing in innovation is essential in order to strengthen the UK’s competitive advantage and maintain and grow the UK’s share of the global market.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) said, investment in science is also an effective way to invest public money to drive economic growth. Every £1 spent by the Government on R and D increases private sector productivity by 20p per year in perpetuity. As the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills highlights in its own report, Government R and D investment leverages in for that £1 investment an average £1.36 in private investment. Government investment also provides a productive environment for research generally. For example, although Cancer Research UK does not receive any Government funding for research, it depends on Government’s investment in UK science to create a supportive environment for that research. For these reasons and many others, we on the Committee recommended that the Government produce a long-term road map for increasing public and private R and D in the UK to 3% of GDP. Businesses need as much certainty as possible when making substantial commitments to long-term investment, and a robust road map will help to deliver that.
The spending review showed that the Government have listened to concerns from the science community, with the protection of science resource funding in real terms at its current level, to increase in line with inflation for the rest of this Parliament. Members will know that this is a better deal than the flat cash settlement in 2010, which, owing to inflation, caused the real value to fall. While inflation is very low—in fact, nearly zero—it may not seem as though this is a terribly dramatic commitment, but, again, it provides economic certainty. China is going through a period of economic turmoil and the European Union is still in the doldrums, so the Government are showing that the UK is a great place to invest.
However, despite moves to deliver on the £6.9 billion commitment in the Conservative manifesto, and the stability and confidence created by the new ring-fence, investment in the science base is still low compared with that in other leading scientific nations. Fortunately, the UK science industry is rightly recognised for the superb quality of its research. While representing only 0.9% of the world population, it produces 15.9% of the top-quality research findings. A productive research environment must have Government investment in science capital and resource. However, the work is far from over. We need to do more to reap the benefits of our research in order to convert the research findings into the commercial, both for products and services. This is not an easy task to accomplish. It requires more than a protection of budgets, as was highlighted in the Dowling report. We must reduce the complexity of support systems to provide clear advice on funding, as the Government recognised and supported in their response to the Committee.
Like many, I was pleased that following the spending review, the Government will take forward the recommendations of the Nurse review of research councils, which, subject to legislation, will introduce a new body—Research UK—that will work above and across the seven existing research councils. While welcoming the Nurse review, we need to be mindful that the Dowling report highlighted how complex a system can become and the need for simplification, or “hiding the wiring”. The integration of Innovate UK and the proposed Research UK has the potential to strengthen collaboration between the research and commercial sectors but, as with everything, there must be clarification of what decisions will be made at the research council level and what decisions are to be made by the new overarching body. Long-term and stable Government investment will help to foster partnerships between industry, research organisations, charities and international partners. These relationships need the confidence that this Government are bringing by delivering economic recovery and the good deal in the science budget.
Beyond the science budget, several Government Departments finance research and development with an un-ring-fenced budget. This highlights the importance of having a chief scientific adviser for every Government Department, or at least access to one. With devolution, we ought to take the opportunity to look at other models such as that in Germany to see whether its Government structure, though different from ours, offers any guidance. In Germany, individual states have scientific advisers. I look forward to seeing how devolution enables city regions such as Greater Manchester to take the best scientific advice and focus on supporting our fantastic universities, institutes and industries, perhaps with each city region having its own dedicated scientific adviser. There is increasing specialisation in the UK whereby every business and organisation focuses on what it does well. For example, as the UK pharmaceutical industry concentrates itself in the triangle linking Oxford, Cambridge and London, we need to recognise the importance of gaining critical mass for particular industries in other areas of the UK.
The Greater Manchester area has a fantastic history as a global player in the mass spectrometry industry, inspired by John Dalton’s work in Manchester on atomic theory in the late 18th and early 19th century. Coincidentally, that is also the industry to which I belonged before coming to this place. We are rightly proud that, in addition to our many other industries and organisations, the National Graphene Institute will make Manchester a leading centre of graphene research and commercialisation, and secure jobs for the future.
As our economy continues to strengthen, we need to ensure that our science base keeps pace with it. I am pleased that the spending review has been well received by UK scientists, but, without increased investment in R and D, the UK risks losing its position at the forefront of global research, particularly given the intense international competition. That is why I urge the Government to create a science road map that stretches beyond the electoral cycle. A commitment to that road map would give much valued certainty about investment, which it sometimes takes decades to deliver, and act as a mechanism for the whole R and D community to challenge political parties to commit to it in their manifestos.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
At the outset, I congratulate the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee on her determination to publish its report on the science budget before the comprehensive spending review. That no doubt contributed to the Chancellor’s announcement that the science budget would be maintained for the duration of this Parliament.
Although the settlement was greeted with relief by many in the scientific community, that was only because they had feared much worse. Government investment in science is pitifully poor. Since 2010, the science budget has been frozen in cash terms, leading to a real-terms drop of 10% over the last Parliament. By 2012, UK Government investment in science had fallen to an embarrassing 0.44% of GDP—less than any G8 country has invested in R and D in the past 20 years.
Despite that fact, the UK remains one of the best places in the world to do science, but how can that position be maintained when countries such as Japan and South Korea are pumping money into their research establishments? They have created an environment that allows science to flourish, and it is no surprise that their economies are also booming. If we are not careful, we risk losing the lead in cutting-edge science. When the Universities UK spokesperson, Dr Dandridge, addressed the Science and Technology Committee, she said that long-term under-investment of publicly funded research in the UK is leading to an erosion of capacity.
The Scottish Government have already recognised that erosion and have sought to mitigate the impact—subject to the reserved nature of Research Councils UK and Government research and development spend—by increasing their expenditure on research and knowledge exchange by 11% in the year 2013-14, yielding a rise of 38% since 2007. I ask the UK Government to do likewise.
As a physicist, it was a pleasure to visit CERN with the Committee last week. It is a wonderful example of international collaboration. Many may wonder about the wider impact of the facility, which is known for its work on particle collisions, but, in order to promote and carry out such high-level experiments, technology has been developed and innovation has flourished. The facility gave birth to the world wide web. Particle acceleration and focusing technology have led to medical developments such as proton beam therapy for cancer. For me, however, one of the most exciting projects at CERN is the development of high-temperature superconducting materials, which will allow current to flow with zero resistance, and have major implications for global energy supply.
There are many physicists, engineers and technicians from the UK working at CERN, including Aidan Robson from the University of Glasgow, who was a member of the team that discovered the Higgs boson. However, when we were shown the total number of personnel, it was rather disappointing to see that there were only 900 from the UK, compared with 1,500 from Italy and 1,300 from Germany. When I asked why that was, I was told that Italy is more serious about science. A new type of particle accelerator is currently being developed at CERN, but it might be built in Japan because the Japanese Government are willing to contribute 50% of the costs. That is how a Government demonstrate that they are serious about science.
Recent work, most notably by Professor Stephen Watson at Glasgow University, has pointed to the significance of the infrastructure spend component of UK Government investment, but there is a huge mismatch between the spend for the so-called golden triangle and that for elsewhere in the UK. Infrastructure investment is known to play a key role in driving scientific discovery and, crucially, in attracting business investment. No one would deny the impressive nature of buildings such as the Crick Institute in London, and I look forward to seeing it up and running. However, such a facility means that private investment will flow into a narrow geographical area. The Government must, therefore, map out investment, both thematically and geographically—that has never been done before—to ensure that pockets of excellence are allowed to grow throughout these isles.
Chris Green
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point about where we invest in, encourage and support science, but often the money and resources follow the expertise, so if there are great centres in a particular location, business and Government will, naturally, invest in them. The reason the Italians have a particular interest in CERN is that they have a great speciality in particle physics, which our country does not emphasise so much. We look at different areas.
Carol Monaghan
There is no reason why the UK should not be a world leader in particle physics as well. Our infrastructure and environment must allow those skills and talents to be developed.
My final point relates to the proposal to give loans rather than grants to industry-based research, which has sent a chill through research-intensive industries such as the pharmaceutical sector. The UK is in a global competition to attract industries to carry out R and D here. The proposals could put the UK at a serious competitive disadvantage, and we run the very real risk that companies will move their R and D abroad.
In conclusion, I have several questions to pose to the Minister. First, does he agree that more, not less, investment in blue-sky scientific research is needed? Will the Government commit to increasing science spending to 3% of GDP, which is the EU target, as recommended in the Select Committee report? Secondly, will the Government commit to reviewing infrastructure spend on science to ensure that the talents of the scientific community in all parts of the United Kingdom are properly supported? Finally, will the Government abandon their hare-brained plan to replace research grants with loans?
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I congratulate all members of the Science and Technology Committee on their excellent report. I especially congratulate the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who has led us through it so eloquently. The report has hit the nail on the head. As the Chair of the Committee has said, science is vital to securing Britain’s future prosperity, research and development. It not only underpins our economic position, but helps to secure our wellbeing and health, by contributing to potential medical breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer and heart disease and even in the eradication of grey hair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has mentioned. I was reminded of that at the event I attended yesterday, “Voice of the Future 2016”, which the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has mentioned. That event was an opportunity for young scientists and engineers to questions parliamentarians, and the Minister knows all about it because we were both there for the question and answer sessions towards the end of the day. It was gratifying and inspiring to hear that there is such support for science among our young people.
If only the Government were equally supportive. Unfortunately for us all, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, where the levers of growth in the Government are found, suffered a further 17% cut in the November spending review. Much was made of the protection of the £4.7 billion science budget until the end of the Parliament in 2020, and Ministers seemed to be especially proud of protecting the science capital budget of £1.1 billion until 2021. I was pleased to be reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) that some other Departments did better. For example, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government—as far as housing was concerned—secured a more favourable capital spend. However, I would be the first to concede that many in science and industry breathed a sigh of relief at that settlement; after all, I think they were expecting much worse.
The situation could have been so much better. As we have just been reminded by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), flat cash settlements eroded the ring-fenced, non-capital science budget by £1 billion in real terms in the previous Parliament. If we discount the introduction of the global challenges fund, which is geared to overseas development and has many strings attached, we are dealing with another flat cash settlement that will create a serious real-terms decline in funding.
The fact remains that £4.7 billion is only 0.49% of GDP, which pales in comparison with our competitor nations. The UK Government’s spending on R and D is the lowest among the G8 countries. As the Minister knows, the Royal Society has called for investment in R and D to be increased to 0.67% of GDP, to match the OECD average. The CBI has called for it to be doubled to around 1% of GDP. That is because, as the former director general of the CBI remarked last year, we are falling ever further behind our international competitors, and we must take action to ensure that we lead from the front.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that although those numbers, as she presents them, may not sound good, the output that we get for that funding is better than ever?
Yvonne Fovargue
I agree that the output is good, but surely that makes the case for more investment in the science budget, not less.
As the Select Committee pointed out, the UK has fallen behind its competitors in total R and D investment. If that trend is not reversed, it will put UK competitiveness, productivity and high-value jobs at risk. The Committee recommended increasing public and private R and D investment to 3% of GDP. The current position is about 1.6% of GDP. We have heard about how much less we spend than our competitor nations, and we have a serious problem of underfunding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon and for Bolton West (Chris Green) have all cited compelling figures. As they have mentioned, there is much value in using public funding to leverage private money and increase productivity, so why not commit to more funding and lever more from private industry? We are not seeing the level of industry funding for R and D that we need. I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool on scaling up investment, not just start-up investment.
In their response to the Committee’s report, the Government mention Innovate UK and the Catapult network, which aims to strengthen R and D capacity and encourage innovation. I commend them for that development. As we have heard, however, £165 million of UK grants to Innovate UK for turning scientific research into commercial applications have been axed and replaced by loans. That creates additional risks for researchers and is liable to damage innovation. Both the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses have raised concerns. I repeat the call that has been made: on what evidence has this decision been based? Do the Government believe that turning grants into loans will benefit innovation and encourage companies to invest?
On the subject of the Catapult network, why does the north of England do so badly when it comes to Innovate UK funding? The north-west did not have a single Catapult project until late last year, while Yorkshire and the Humber gets about 5% of total funding. How can that be right when the south-east gets 52% of it? As several hon. Members have said, what we need from the Government is a proper road map to outline where are we are going with research and development. Let me add that any road needs to go to the north, not just stop at the M25. It is unclear what the Government are trying to achieve in the long run. What is their plan? Can they see the wisdom of increasing R and D funding as a proportion of GDP to something approaching that of our competitors? Nowhere in their response to the Committee’s report is that made clear.
As hon. Members have said, we have a lot to be proud of in this country. The UK is very good at research—we have heard many of the figures—and we in fact gain hugely in that regard from our membership of the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said so eloquently. Scientific development and innovation are critically dependent on collaborative ideas and contributions. The EU helps universities to pursue cutting-edge research. It also makes working across borders easier for UK and European researchers pooling their knowledge, infrastructure, data and resources. In fact, the UK does disproportionately well in securing EU funding. During the last period, we received €8.8 billion in direct EU funding.
We also need to ensure that the UK Government are fully behind the science research project. Flat cash settlements for R and D do not help; nor do Cabinet Office missives suggesting that scientists in receipt of Government grants should not try to influence policy. Whatever happened to the idea of evidence-based policy making? The muzzling of some of our finest minds will not help. Above all, we need a Government who have a sense of the future potential of science funding. That is why everyone has talked about the need for a road map, which is the most important missing element. Unless we have a sense of where we are going, we will fall further and further behind our competitors, instead of reaching for the stars like Major Tim Peake.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for her Select Committee’s important work. I will use the time available to address some of the concerns of the Science and Technology Committee and to respond to some of the points made by hon. Members.
First, it is right to remind ourselves of and to celebrate the landscape in which the Government’s plan for science and research lies. As hon. Members have mentioned, the UK’s global scientific impact far exceeds our size as a nation. With just 3.2% of the world’s R and D spend, the UK accounts for 16% of the most highly cited research articles—we have overtaken the US to rank first among comparable research nations for our field-weighted citations impact—of which we should all be extremely proud.
That is why science and research very much sit at the very heart of this Government’s economic plan. Last July, our productivity plan clearly set out how we will tackle the UK’s long-term productivity problem, with science and research being central to our proposed solutions. This autumn’s spending review settlement was an emphatic confirmation of that commitment: an extension of the ring fence around science and innovation until 2020 means a total investment of £30.4 billion during this Parliament.
The ring fence has been a powerful indication of the Government’s commitment to science, and we will continue to protect science resource funding in real terms for the rest of the Parliament. We are building on the safeguards put in place for the science budget in the last Parliament. That will mean a decade of protection and of sustained investment by the Government. All that of course comes in the context of significant savings in other areas of Government expenditure, which is a clear sign of the important place of science in our decision making.
The Science and Technology Committee has called for a road map towards a 3% R and D spend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon knows, decisions on increases in the science spend are taken in spending reviews, when it is weighed up against the other priorities for the nation. My hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee also asked about allocations. We have discussed indicative allocations with our partner organisations. They are very much aware of their likely settlements, and I assure her that we will publish the allocations imminently.
My hon. Friend asked about the next steps in the implementation of the Nurse review and our thinking about the proposals we outlined in the Green Paper. As I am sure she will have appreciated, we consulted very carefully on how best to proceed, with a proper 10-week consultation. Although I understand her impatience to know how we will take all the proposals forward, it is important that we do so in a deliberative fashion and get these important decisions absolutely right. The consultation period ended only on 15 January and we will come forward with our full response in the spring.
In the meantime, I hope that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance she seeks from the Government by saying that we will maintain the spirit of the dual support system, which is so important to our research sector, alongside the continuation of the important Haldane principle, which ensures that decisions about which research to fund are taken by scientists through competitive peer review processes. To deal with her concerns about the operation of the dual support system in a bit more detail, it is possible to ring-fence or hypothecate separate funding streams, even when they are delivered through a single body. That is a model that the Government can and do use effectively, and that could ensure the continuation of the dual support system in a reshaped landscape.
The Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) raised concerns about the move from grants to loans which were echoed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). We will market-test the proposed new financial products in the spring. We want to broaden the types of financial support that are available for innovation in this country. BIS and Innovate UK are studying the financial models that are operated by our international counterparts in respect of innovation. It is clear from our analysis of what is going on around the world that the most successful models are increasingly emphasising other financial products in their policy mix as a supplement to their grant funding, which will always have a place.
We want to ensure that the overall funding through Innovate UK evolves and that the spectrum of products diversifies to reflect the different needs of different companies at different stages in their lifecycle. Overall funding will increase from £311 million in 2009-10 to £471 million by 2019-20. That figure includes the new finance products.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) rightly echoed the Dowling report’s recommendation that we seek greater simplification of the innovation landscape and support system. We will certainly take that core recommendation into account as we develop the thinking on our national innovation plan.
I want to emphasise three commitments in the spending review and ensure that the House understands their importance. The first is our commitment to protect science resource funding at £4.7 billion. This is the lifeblood that powers our world-leading science and research base. It funds vital blue-skies research, fuels the Bunsen burners and afterburners, and funds labs up and down the country, the research councils and the national academies, thereby making sure that Britain stays at the leading edge of global science.
At the same time, we are delivering on our manifesto commitment and investing in new commitments on a record scale, with £6.9 billion for capital expenditure. That means new research institutes and laboratories across the UK. It has been one of the greatest privileges as Science Minister to break ground on new institutions such as the imaging centre of excellence at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow. To answer the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, I hope that that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we fund excellent science wherever it is found in the United Kingdom.
Through our science and innovation audit, we want to encourage areas that have not received much science funding relative to other areas to come forward with proposals that we can support when we feel that they have the potential to be excellent and to do great science. We want more such proposals.
The third matter that I want to consider is the global challenges research fund. We have committed an additional £1.5 billion to the fund by 2021. It will keep the UK at the forefront of global research, leading the way on major global challenges, such as Ebola, in which we have always played a significant role. The value of the GCRF is not just what the UK can do alone. We have some of the world’s most talented scientists, most prestigious universities and most advanced laboratories, but the most significant breakthroughs in science and research are bigger than just one country.
That brings me to the points that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made. I am glad to have his general support for all the spending review commitments that I have briefly summarised. They will give the science community the certainty that it needs for the years ahead. Like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise the important role that public sector investment in science plays in stimulating private sector investment. Other Members have already cited the crowding-in effect, which we estimate at about £1.36 for every £1 of public investment.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is also clearly right about Europe. Science today is increasingly cross-border and collaborative. I have made my position clear, as have the Government: UK universities and our superb science base are key to our future as a knowledge economy, and we and they will be much stronger inside the EU. That is best for our research. Almost half of all UK research publications involve collaborations with other countries. Papers involving international collaboration have almost twice the citation impact of those produced by a single UK author, and EU countries are among our most crucial partners, representing nearly 50% of all our overseas collaborators.
Staying in the EU is best for our students. Our links with Europe are deep and long standing. Free movement of people makes it easier for our universities to attract the best talent, and for British students to spread their wings across the continent. Lastly, it is best for our funding. The excellence of our research base means that it is no surprise that the UK is one of the most successful players in EU research programmes.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is not it the case that we collaborate a great deal with the United States of America, which is not a member of the European Union? Would not any British Government want freedom of movement of expert people to our universities, whether we were in or out of the EU?
Joseph Johnson
My right hon. Friend is right—the partnerships are not exclusive, but why turn our back on great collaborations that benefit our science base tremendously?
The UK received €7 billion under the last framework programme, which ran from 2007 to 2013. That made us one of the largest beneficiaries of EU research funding. In this funding round, Horizon 2020, we have secured 15.4% of funds, behind only Germany on 16.5%, and with the second largest number of project participations.
As science becomes more international, we should nurture partnerships, not reject them. In the end, the British people will decide whether we are safer, stronger and better off as part of the EU, but, to thrive in a knowledge economy, there is no doubt that we need to build academic partnerships, not turn our backs on them.
Nicola Blackwood
The debate has been not only consensual but of high quality. The Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills is right to say that we are in the middle of a fourth industrial revolution founded on science and technology and that the only sensible approach is to increase R and D investment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who has been such an outstanding champion for science in this place, is also right to say that, as a nation, we have a long and illustrious history of scientific endeavour and we would be foolish to take any steps that undermined the proven Haldane principle on which it is built.
Relief will have swept through the corridors of both Houses at the groundbreaking news brought to us by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) that the days of the comb-over and the unibrow are numbered. My Committee colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) was right to highlight Dowling’s recommendations—they have yet to be responded to by the Government—on simplifying the achingly complex science and innovation support system. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) joined other Committee members when she said that we need a more strategic approach to geographic allocation of capital investment, and I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their responses.
On the necessary deliberation and response to the Green Paper, and the fact that the consultation period only ended in January, I gently remind the Minister that the Government have chosen to respond to Dowling, the Nurse review and the Green Paper as one. Those reports came through before Christmas, and there has been quite a long delay for the scientific community in waiting for them.
As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central so eloquently said, we are in a golden age of British science. That is in no small part due to the championing of science by the Chancellor and successive Science Ministers, but there is no room for complacency. We must be mindful of the investment time lag, and acutely conscious that science and innovation will lie at the heart of our success as a nation. That is why I will simply restate that it is time for a step change in our investment in R and D. I call on the Government to ensure that our strategic capital investments are fully resourced so that we can sweat our assets, and I restate our key recommendation, which is the publication of a long-term road map to increase public and private R and D up to 3% of GDP. That strategic investment will create jobs, increase productivity, attract inward investment, and fund the groundbreaking discovery that is necessary to fund the great global challenges of our time.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
End of Life Care
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The care that people receive at the end of their lives has a profound impact, not only on them but on their families and carers. All Members of the House want people to be able to access the highest quality care, irrespective of their age, diagnosis, where they live or the setting in which they are treated. We know how to deliver world-class care—indeed, we know how to deliver globally inspiring care. To start on a positive note, I should say that The Economist ranks Britain as the best in the world, from among 80 nations, for delivering end-of-life care, and we should be proud of that. The disadvantage is that that care is not available everywhere to everyone, and that is the challenge we face today.
In the 2015 report “Dying without dignity”, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman set out some starkly worrying cases of poor care that highlighted a theme, and she was clear that it is a recurring and consistent theme in her casework. For that reason, the Minister must look carefully at the themes in that report, and also at other reports that have been produced.
At the end of the previous Parliament, the Health Committee produced a report on end-of-life care, and I thank all members of that Committee, the Committee staff and our Committee specialist advisors for their valuable input, as well as the very many people and organisations from around the country who contributed.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that we must also consider the families of those children who unfortunately have very short lives? We need support for them as well, and it should be available across the country.
Dr Wollaston
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that this care should apply irrespective of someone’s age or the setting in which they are treated. Social care will be integral to that, and I will expand further on that issue later on.
Another report the Minister will be aware of—it was commissioned by the previous Government from the Choice in End of Life Care Programme board—is “What’s Important to Me. A Review of Choice in End of Life Care”. It is now exactly a year since that report was launched. When can we see a timetable and a response to that long-awaited report?
I know other Members want to speak, so I will just touch on four key themes today: variation, communication, choice and control, and funding—including funding for social care. On variation, dying does not make equals of us. People with cancer are currently accessing about 75% of specialist palliative care. We are making great progress in that regard, but we need to make such palliative care available to people with other diagnoses. Our report touched on poor access for elderly people, particularly those with a diagnosis of dementia. The Minister will be aware of the “National Care of the Dying Audit for Hospitals,” which showed that 21% of hospital trusts are meeting National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for providing seven-day-a-week, face-to-face specialist palliative care between the hours of nine and five. In fact, only 2% of trusts are making that care available around the clock, seven days a week. We have a long way to go.
Tackling variation means understanding where the gaps exist. The VOICES survey, which collects the views of informal carers and evaluates the services available to them, has been invaluable in setting out the issues important to those who have been bereaved and the experience of their loved ones after a bereavement. A point that has been made to me very forcefully is that we could do so much better in addressing the gaps in provision if the VOICES survey was expanded. Currently, it does not have enough power to be able to identify where there is variation around the country. Will the Minister address that point when he sums up?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend could give me some guidance. Ideally, when should end-of-life care begin? What sort of time period are we talking about and how much uncertainty is there over the diagnosis? There are all sorts of complications: we cannot be sure whether someone is terminally ill and is going to die within a limited number of days.
Dr Wollaston
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. It should start as soon as possible—as soon as someone receives a life-limiting diagnosis. We need to start those conversations much earlier on. We need to get better at identifying, towards the very end of life, when people are in the final stages of an illness. I will touch on that point in greater depth in a minute.
We should recognise some successes and welcome the changes made by the Care Quality Commission, in one of its thematic reviews, to prioritise end-of-life care. Does the Minister have any plans to roll out that rather successful approach in prioritising end-of-life care to out-of-hospital settings? The CQC has highlighted successfully the critical importance of leadership in improving end-of-life care, examining how having a named individual—not as a tick in a box—translates into their leading change within the hospital and identifying other individuals there who can improve the quality of care at the end of life. Recognising it as a thematic review would be very helpful in other fields.
The critical importance of training has been raised by all those who have commented. We need to provide adequate training for medical, nursing and caring staff across the board. Has the Minister had any conversations with Health Education England about what progress can be made in rolling out further training?
On communication, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched on, early identification will be crucial to rolling out end-of-life care to other groups beyond the traditional groups who access specialist end-of-life care. That means health professionals having the confidence and training to raise these issues at a much earlier stage and to start those difficult conversations that are too often put off.
We know that having an end-of-life care plan enables people to exercise much greater choice and control. We could go further in looking at explaining to people the differences between, for example, advance statements of wishes and advance decisions to refuse treatment. We could help people to put in place lasting powers of attorney, and nowhere is that more important than when people have been diagnosed with dementia. These conversations need, critically, to start at a much earlier point.
The sharing of communication between professionals is another issue. I know that the Minister has taken an interest in electronic care planning. When people have a life-limiting diagnosis, how can we ensure that at whatever point in the system they access care, they will not have to keep repeating their story? People’s wishes need to be understood at the earliest possible stage. We know that electronic care planning can help to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. It is crucial for ambulance staff, for example, to have access to people’s records—with the patients’ consent, of course—so that they can be shared widely. Will the Minister update us in his summing up on what progress he has made with respect to electronic care planning and recording people’s wishes?
We can also improve communication by putting in place care co-ordinators. This point has been made to me repeatedly by people who are suffering from life-limiting illnesses. The system can sometimes appear to be terribly confusing, so allowing families to have a single point of contact to advocate on their behalf at a time when they are in distress can make a huge difference, as can having a named clinician who is taking overall responsibility for the care.
On care for people at the very end of life, the Minister will know that over the years we have much debated the Liverpool care pathway and its success. Other Members may wish to talk in greater detail about that, but emergency care treatment plans are important so that people can clearly document their wishes well in advance—not as a tick-box exercise, but as a considered exercise of having discussions with individuals and their loved ones about what their wishes are and then ensuring that they are respected. Will the Minister tell us where we are now with emergency care treatment planning?
At a time when people so often feel that they are losing control towards the end of their lives, it is vital to give people more choice and more control. That was the key theme of the so-called “Choice” review, on which I hope the Minister will update us. Where are we now with all who need it having a “national choice offer”, as it was termed? We know that about a half of the 470,000 people who died in 2014 died in hospital, yet we know from the VOICES survey that of those who expressed a preference, only 3% wanted to be in hospital. We are a long way from allowing people the kind of choice and control they want about where to be at the end of their lives. Most people would prefer to be at home, surrounded by their loved ones. We can do far better.
Many practical issues need to be addressed. One that I have seen first hand in my clinical experience is where families are exhausted and overwhelmed by caring responsibilities. Sometimes the individual at the heart of this will opt to go into hospital because they feel bad about the burden they feel, often wrongly, they are placing on their families. One key theme of our Health Committee report was that nobody should have to end their life in hospital for want of a social care package. That will mean being much more generous about providing free social care at the end of life, or much more rapid access to the assessments needed to allow people to continue in care, as they are sometimes very delayed. I hope the Minister will update us on that, too.
The Minister will be familiar with the work of the Nuffield Trust. Its report on the use of Marie Curie nurses, for example, pointed out that the service could save total care costs of £500 per patient and also allow many more people to be where they wanted to be at the end of their lives. Not only is the service good value for the overall health and care system, but it provides the choice and control that people desperately need and deserve at the end of their lives.
Funding lies at the heart of this issue, and it is not just a question of social care packages. I know the whole House agrees that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the hospice movement. Hospices play a pivotal role in outreach, providing specialist support not just for hospitals but, critically, throughout the community. Rowcroft hospice, in my constituency, is hugely valued in the community. It provides extraordinary levels of care and supplies many specialist services to the NHS to deal with—cases of lymphoedema, for instance. This week, however, it informed me that it faces a funding shortfall of £1 million next year. While about a third of its funding comes from the NHS, about 60% comes from charitable giving.
Hospices do not want to lose their link with the voluntary sector, because it is deeply embedded in the way in which they work in communities. However, it makes them rather vulnerable, because the level of charitable giving and legacies can vary greatly. What they need is a higher percentage of stable core funding to allow them to expand the important work that they do. The Minister will probably want to comment on the so-called currencies that are being developed to replace funding for palliative care. The feedback that I am receiving suggests that there is a risk that that will become a rather bureaucratic process, and there is also a worry that its implementation by clinical commissioning groups will not be compulsory. An update from the Minister would be helpful.
Will the Minister also assure us that, if the Government intend to implement all the recommendations of the “Choice” review—which I hope they do—he is satisfied that, across NHS England, the business plans that have been established will allow sufficient funding for a full implementation?
I know that other Members wish to speak. There are many other issues that I could raise, including bereavement support and research, but let me end by asking the Minister to be truly ambitious. I think that we can achieve seven-day, 24-hour access to specialist palliative care in all settings, and that we can address variation and give people choice and control at the end of their lives. It would be an extraordinary achievement for the Government to go further. We should not rest on our laurels because we are leading the world; we should say that we lead the world not just for some people, but for everyone.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about such an important issue. Let me begin where the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) left off. I have been very impressed by what I have read. When end-of-life and palliative care in this country is at its very best, it is indeed the best in the world, which makes me proud to be British. However, it saddens me that that is not the case more widely. All the recent reports have demonstrated that access to the very best care varies tremendously, and is very patchy. It is for that reason that end-of-life care has been the subject of recent studies and reports, not least those of the Health Committee.
I understand that a very thorough piece of work was done before I became a member of the Committee last year, and that concerns were raised about this very issue. The “Choice” review body looked into it as well, and came up with various recommendations. I want to focus on one of those recommendations in particular. The review recommended that 24/7 care should be made available for people in a community setting. The point has already been made that it is hard to define the end of life and the timescale involved. Indeed, the British Medical Association makes the point that more funds are needed to train staff to a level at which they can better identify these things. The end of life can be a lengthy process, and people need support at this most important time of their life.
Most people who responded to questionnaires on this subject have said that they would prefer to die in the comfort of their own home, surrounded by their family. In order for that to happen with the maximum dignity and the highest standards, investment is needed in social care above all else. The recent cuts in social care budgets have been a matter of concern for most of us. Lancashire County Council is further reducing its spending on social care, and the elderly and disabled in my constituency and their families are already worried about the impact that this could have on them. However, we still aspire to have the highest possible standards for end of life care, and the two concepts simply do not add up.
I wonder why the Government are delaying their response to the “Choice” review. We desperately need to hear what their plans are, to determine whether they are really listening. The “Choice” review also recommended additional funding of £130 million, because the £8 billion that was allocated for spending in the NHS has already been well and truly spent many times over. County councils’ adult social care budgets are feeling the pinch.
Last year, in the run-up to the introduction of the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris)—the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill—people in my constituency told me of their concerns about dignity at the end of life. Many of them asked me to vote to support the Bill because they were worried that a level of care that afforded them the dignity they wanted would not be available. They were worried about whether they might suffer and what the experience would be like for their families.
This issue is rightly at the top of the agenda, because this is the very least that we can do for the elderly and the sick. We do not like to talk about it, but everyone’s life is going to end and we need to think about this. The fact that we cannot do this better in 21st-century Britain makes me ashamed. We know that we could do it better, so I urge the Minister to read the recommendations put forward last year by the Health Committee and by the “Choice” review. In fact, I am sure that he has already done so. Almost 12 months have gone by, and this is a matter of urgency. It is quite shocking that we have not dealt with it before. I urge the Minister to look at the recommendations and to ensure that those who choose to die in their own homes in the community get the excellent care and support that they rightly deserve.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
This is a timely debate. We do not discuss this matter regularly, and I pay tribute to the Health Committee for producing its report. Having looked at the Official Report, I understand that the last debate on the subject took place in 2011. That debate concentrated on Great Yarmouth and Waveney. The subject deserves a lot more discussion because it affects many of our constituents and their families. If things go wrong at the end of life, it can leave the surviving partner and the family with a great sense of guilt. All of us have had people come into our surgeries who cannot get over the way in which a relative has been treated in these circumstances. It is absolutely vital for the wellbeing of the families that the Government get this policy right, so that they can move on and recover from the experience. Over the years, I have observed fantastic fundraisers for hospices in the community, and this is one area where the charity sector comes into its own, with rugby matches, cricket matches and jamborees. These things do get public support but it is sometimes a hard ask to keep raising the sort of money that they do. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have increased the funding, although I think it is right and proper that they do not overdo it, because sometimes Government money can drive out money raised by the private sector.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. Will he reflect on the importance of not only the care of the patient, but the care of the patient’s family at this most difficult time? The new state-of-the-art Marie Curie hospice in Solihull provides not only very good patient care, but a real home from home for relatives and patients at this most acute time.
Mr Syms
My hon. Friend makes a good point. What I have also noticed about the hospice movement is that many people go in for one or two days a week when they start to become ill. That not only makes them familiar with the hospice, but gives respite to the rest of the family, allowing the carer to do all the jobs they would otherwise have done if they were not caring for their relative. It means that they get more used to the environment, so when the final days come things are much easier for the family. Dealing with this situation and how the families feel is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) mentioned the Liverpool pathway. All of us have constituents who have been worried about how their relatives were being treated at the end of their life, so I am glad that we have decided to phase that pathway out.
My principal point is to pay tribute to the wonderful fundraisers, the wonderful nurses and the charity organisations that do so much in our constituencies to make families feel at ease at this difficult time. I welcome the “Choice” review, which the Government have set up. It has come up with some sensible recommendations and I hope the Government respond to them soon, so that people can spend their final days with dignity, respect and a degree of privacy.
Over the years, I have been impressed by how people deal with the difficulties at the end of life. It is up to us, as politicians, to give people the maximum possible choice, so that they have the maximum possible control over those final few days and can discuss with their family what is going to happen. My hon. Friend made a good point about putting legal provision in place where people have dementia or Alzheimer’s—provision to do with wills and businesses—and all these things are important. Of course most people want to stay at home, and I perfectly understand that, but people often end up in hospital because the ambulance service picks them up in the last few days of their life.
A relatively small number of people die in hospices. As I say, the main benefit of the hospice movement is the day care and outreach it provides to the community, and the reassurance, support and experience it gives to the NHS. The charity sector and this sector are perfect examples of where private and charity bodies can work with the NHS, and may well sometimes be a model for other areas. This is Britain at its best. Tremendous people in all our constituencies are doing terribly well. However, I leave the Minister with the point that we have to respect individuals and families at this difficult time, and if we pick up some of the suggestions of the “Choice” review, we will be taking a real step forward on how people face a challenging occasion.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak in this debate, during the second day of our consideration of the 2015-16 estimates. This is the fourth of our estimates debates and it is on end-of -life care. Supporting an individual at the end of their life is a difficult experience for all involved, be they family members, friends or healthcare workers. Health and social care services play a vital role in making palliative care as dignified as possible, and in ensuring that the patient’s wishes and needs are taken into account. The Liaison Committee has recommended that this important subject be debated today as part of the estimates process.
The Scottish Parliament is partly funded by a block grant. The change in this block grant is determined every year by the Barnett formula. In simple terms, the Barnett formula looks at the change in each Department’s funding in England for that year, and applies either an increase or a decrease in the level of funding that Scotland receives. The calculation takes into account the level of devolution of each Department, and allocates Scotland a population share on that basis.
The Department of Health, as it relates to end-of-life care, has a 100% comparability percentage when it comes to the calculation of Barnett consequentials, which means that any change in the departmental expenditure limit will have a full population share effect on the block grant for this area. Naturally, I was looking forward—indeed, I was on the edge of my seat—to scrutinising the changes that the Government were making to the budgets for end-of-life care. I picked up HC 747, “Central Government Supply Estimates 2015-16”, and flicked speedily to the Department of Health section on pages 97 to 112. Members can imagine my shock and disappointment when I found that the words “end-of -life care” were not mentioned anywhere in the booklet. It is a bit surprising considering that it is 736 pages long—one would have thought that end-of-life care would have appeared somewhere.
Then the Order Paper came out. Hurrah, thought I, this is my opportunity, because it mentioned a number of documents associated with end-of-life care. I thought that I could look at the budget in relation to end-of-life care and see what the knock-on effect would be for Scotland. I picked up all the various documents, but found that none of them lays out the budgetary spend, or the saving, associated with the changes. The documents do tackle major issues of great importance in relation to end-of-life care in NHS England. They highlight both the strengths and the weaknesses in current end-of-life care provision and lay out the UK Government’s plans to make changes, but they do not lay out the budgetary spend or saving associated with any of those changes.
End-of-life care is important to those many families and individuals who are struggling to come to terms with bad news, navigate the health and social care systems, ensure appropriate support is in place for themselves and their loved ones, and make plans and take decisions that they never dreamed they would have to make. It is important that Parliament ensures that end-of-life care is funded appropriately. I know that many Members want to talk about the issues that have to be faced and the ways to solve them—or at least how to alleviate the suffering a little for these families and individuals—but it is nigh on impossible for Parliament to provide appropriate scrutiny of the funding when we are not provided with the budgetary costs associated with the plans.
I want an increased spend in the Department of Health budget as it relates to end of life care, but I am struggling with these documents, as I cannot discover how much is currently being spent on it. Also, I am not allowed to table an amendment that proposes to increase Government spend in this area. If I desired to amend the total net budget of the Department of Health, which is £25,869,317,000, my only option would be to amend the budget downwards by £1,000. There are no other amendments that I can table in relation to this, so I cannot, during the estimates process, move an amendment to increase the Department of Health budget in relation to end-of-life care or to anything else and, consequentially, the Scottish block grant.
I am very pleased that we are discussing this vital and difficult issue, but I am distressed that we are not able to discuss in any detail the funding of this area, which is becoming increasingly important as our population ages.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate today. A number of common themes run through the debate, the first of which is the fact that most people want to die in their own beds. Before coming to this debate, I tried to find some statistics on the subject. I trawled through a whole lot of figures on the internet, and what I came up with was the fact that 70% of us want to die in our own beds, yet 60% of people die in hospital.
Why is there such a discrepancy in the figures? Is it a ridiculous aspiration for 70% of us to want to die in our beds, or do we need to be better at organising end-of-life care services? The evidence from the Netherlands suggests the latter In particular, there needs to be more emphasis on the social care aspect, the reorganisation of that and its delivery.
What does that come down to in practice? The issue came to the fore in my constituency with the re-provision of a hospital in Henley, the Townlands hospital. The hospital will be re-provided with a greater range of services for people to access and a limited number of beds at the side of the hospital in a care home. The gap is being taken up by a system that has come to be called ambulatory care, involving greater use of social care packages. This follows a change in practice, where the aim is to reduce the number of beds and keep people out of hospital for as long as possible.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
My own father died at home. The Government’s response to the report states that a priority is to ensure that families are kept in the loop in the final days, but in our case, we did not know it was my father’s final days. A nurse turned up on the last day with an end-of-life care kit. In front of my father she said, “Here’s the end-of-life care kit,” and he died a few hours later. Does my hon. Friend agree that better communication is needed with those who want to die at home?
John Howell
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As many hon. Members know, I recently lost my mother. Contrary to what I said earlier, she died in hospital, but I have to say that the services provided were exemplary. We were taken into the thinking of the clinicians as her illness progressed, we were told exactly what would happen, and this led to a greater feeling of comfort with the whole process when she eventually died. I am reconciled with the idea that it was what she wanted. That fits in with the idea of personal choice, where that is possible. In my mother’s case it was not possible because of the illness, but I do not know the circumstances of my hon. Friend’s case. It is something that needs to be borne in mind.
There are still those locally who cannot see that the best interests are served by reducing unnecessary admissions to hospital and moving people out of hospital as soon as possible. I have listened to the clinical advice and the clinical evidence that this is the best way to go. Hospitals, contrary to what they may seem, are not necessarily healthy institutions. Even a short stay reduces the ability of muscles to function and affects quality of life. I spoke to the Alzheimer’s Society about this. The evidence was clear: although admission to hospital or, better still, to care homes will inevitably be required, the best advice was to keep people out of hospital for as long as possible. That was true even in the case of people suffering from Alzheimer’s.
This approach is not just about providing services to those who need periodic treatment, especially end-of -life care. It demands a revolution in the way social care is provided. I am a great advocate of integrated social care and healthcare, and I have heard from doctors about the way in which they decide on the services to be provided. When somebody presents to them with an illness, whatever it might be, the choices are a medical solution—they can be shipped off to hospital or given a prescription—or a social care solution. The feedback I have received from doctors is that they do not have control over the social care aspect, they cannot provide the services and it is very difficult for individuals to access those services, particularly at weekends.
We need this revolution for better control of social care by clinical commissioning groups. We need this revolution for the better use of providing medicine in the home, for example by using internet services, as has been mentioned, which I think is a magnificent way to go. We need this revolution for the timeliness of the provision of services. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) that we need to work across organisations to get this right, including those in the charity sector. If we do that, we can get a really integrated approach.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). When the House debated assisted dying last year, the point was made very strongly that good quality palliative care should be available to all; that at the end of life people deserve a good death, with access to palliative care and support; and that, rather than being subject to a postcode lottery, consistent, high quality end-of-life care should be available to all. Yet the quality of care and support that people and their families experience still varies significantly depending on where they live. Sadly, many people who would benefit from palliative care do not receive any at all. It is estimated that over 100,000 people a year in the UK—almost one in five of all deaths—would benefit from palliative care but do not receive it.
I want to talk about hospice care, as many Members have done. Hospice care forms a vital part of palliative care, supporting people through illness, the end of life, bereavement and into remembrance. It provides for the medical, emotional, social, practical, psychological and spiritual needs of individuals, as well as the needs of their family and carers. Although many might think of hospice care as in-patient care, in fact 90% of it is provided through day care and at-home services, enabling patients to stay in their own homes—many Members have mentioned how important that is—and giving much-needed respite for carers.
Hospice care relies heavily on the support of local communities; it is estimated that 125,000 volunteers donate their time and expertise to UK hospices. On average, Government funding covers only a third of the expenditure of hospices. My constituency is served by an excellent local hospice, Springhill, which works closely with the community and is well known and well respected. The cost of running the hospice exceeds £3 million a year, and 70% of the running costs comes from fundraising in the local community. Year on year, Springhill hospice has to attract 70% of its income through fundraising events, charity shops, lottery, legacies and donations. Like many local people, I am doing my bit to help this year by running the Manchester 10k in aid of the hospice.
Springhill, like most hospices, provides a wide range of services in addition to in-patient and out-patient services, all of which improve the end-of-life experience for both patients and their carers and families. As part of its education programme, the hospice has developed a palliative care education passport for staff in care and nursing homes, and it has just celebrated the first group of 34 staff who have completed the passport. To complete the passport, health and care staff must demonstrate kindness, as well as the skills, confidence and the application of knowledge in the care of those with palliative care needs; transferable skills that, once part of everyday practice, will enhance the care of all service users. That is just one example of a hospice working in partnership with other healthcare providers to deliver better care to more people and to help reduce pressure on the NHS. Such partnerships are vital to deliver the improved end- of-life care we all want to see.
Although we would all agree that our hospices are doing great work, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about statutory funding and commissioning arrangements for our local hospices. NHS and local authority funding for hospice care varies considerably between localities, and a variety of commissioning and contracting practices exists. More than two thirds of hospices had their funding from local CCGs frozen or cut in 2014-15, and more than eight in 10 hospices do not think they are funded fairly and sustainably by the NHS and local authorities. If the Government invested more in hospice care, they could reduce the number of people in hospital at the end of their life who had no clinical need, and no wish, to be there. That would help to relieve the pressure on the NHS and the strain on A&E and acute wards, and it would improve the end-of -life experience for the patient and their family.
I cannot talk about end-of -life care without paying tribute to the work of Marie Curie and Macmillan nurses, without whom patients are more likely to use A&E services and to spend longer in hospital. Although a small number of people would prefer to die in hospital, that is the least preferred option for the majority. As the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned, the Nuffield Trust has shown that using the Marie Curie nursing service results in a £500 reduction in total care costs per person. That cost saving can be replicated by other palliative care providers, meaning that investing in community-based palliative care can save the NHS money and reduce pressure on hospitals.
Changing demographics mean that the situation around end of life care will get worse. By 2040, an extra 100,000 people will die each year. The number of people with long-term conditions will have grown from 1.9 million in 2008 to 2.9 million in 2018. Unless the Government take action now to improve access to palliative care, the situation can only get worse, not better.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome this debate, not least because end-of-life care, or death, is something we as a society tend to avoid talking about, and there are parallels with mental health. Another parallel is that, like mental health, this issue is too often overlooked in our healthcare system. Talking about it here is therefore a step in the right direction.
It is of course good to see that the UK ranks No. 1 in international studies, as other hon. Members have said, but we know that we as a society do not do end-of-life care well enough—in fact, too often we do it badly. One reason that many constituents wrote to me before the assisted dying debate to support assisted dying was that they lacked confidence in the system’s provision of end- of-life care and were not confident that they would have the chance of a good death. As many of us know, it is possible to have a good death, and that is what is experienced in many hospices, which do excellent work, as well as, sometimes, in hospitals and care homes.
Too few people die where they want to, quite apart from the quality of the experience they have. For example, only 6% of over-75s in Kent want to die in hospital, yet 40% actually die there. Some 86% want to die at home or in a hospice, but only 29% die in either of those places.
Every year about 500,000 people die in the UK. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said, about one in five of them do not even receive palliative care. Those 500,000 people have family and friends who are affected by their death, so quality of death, on the basis of scale alone, should be a priority. In their final weeks and months, most people are highly dependent on the NHS, and there are frequent emergency hospital admissions for people towards the end of their life. Those hospital admissions account for 70% of health costs in their last three months of life. Unnecessary admissions to hospital are not only a bad experience for many individuals towards the end of their life, but expensive, and the NHS has scarce resources. That is another reason why it should be a priority to prevent people from dying in hospital when they do not want or need to. The question is whether it is yet a priority. The Public Administration Committee heard evidence that end-of-life care was still consistently overlooked across the NHS.
For the situation to improve, four things need to happen. There needs to be a focus on it from the very top of the NHS—from the leadership and from Government. There needs to be investment in capabilities to give people a better quality of death—not only capabilities of staff in terms of their skills, but in the technology that is needed. There needs to be better learning from what works; many places around the country, and internationally, do this well. There needs to be much greater transparency and measurement of where it is going well and where it is being done badly, and accountability on quality.
On the technology point, many people lack a plan for how they want to die, yet that that can make a real difference. In the absence of a plan, there is often a default response when something happens to somebody who is frail and possibly close to death: an ambulance is called, they are taken to A and E, and they end up in the acute ward of a hospital and may never leave. Only last week, I spoke to a local GP who was very frustrated about this happening to his patients. He has often discussed with them what they would like to happen if their end of life is approaching, and sometimes even written it down. However, too often, in the moment of crisis, what he has written down makes no difference at all, because the people on the scene at the time—for instance, if an ambulance is called out of hours—do not have access to the plan that he has discussed with the patient.
That said, the GP was optimistic that this could change, because his CCG, NHS West Kent, is implementing an electronic care broadcasting system whereby other doctors, A and E and the ambulance staff would be able to access what the patient had said they wanted to happen in that situation. There is strong evidence of the benefits of such systems, which means that far more people are able to die in their preferred place. In some cases, this has resulted in the number of people getting to die in their preferred place of death rising to about 80%, and brought hospital deaths down from the average of about 53% across the country to below 40%, or even as low as 4%. Implementing such systems should therefore be a priority, as should learning from where they are going well.
Transparency and monitoring are a crucial part of improving end-of-life care. We need more transparency. We need to know about the variability that has been mentioned. As MPs, we need to know how good the end-of-life care is for our constituents. I welcome the CQC’s increased attention to end-of-life care, but there are yawning gaps in reporting on quality. There is great inconsistency between what is reported in different areas and different institutions, and between CCGs, and relatively little is reported consistently at a national level. There needs to be a much greater focus on reporting. That was one of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report, and NHS IQ—Improving Quality—looked at it before being transferred into NHS England. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister updated us on what is going on with regard to transparency on quality of end-of-life care, as I know that this Government do understand the importance of transparency.
All of us here today know that end-of-life care must improve; that this affects hundreds of thousands of people every year; that improving it will require continued and greater leadership and focus from the very top of the NHS and from Government; that investment will be required in capabilities and in technology, and should also lead to some cost savings; that there should be greater transparency, monitoring and accountability in respect of quality; and that there should be more, and more effective, sharing of the success stories and evidence of what works. Those things would mean that end-of -life care really was a priority for the health and care system, and that it should improve.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, although I will not speak for too long. I have long been concerned about the long-term care of the elderly and have tabled many early-day motions in the past, including following the royal commission report in the late 1990s. The then Government went to great lengths to ensure that the report was not agreed unanimously, because they did not want to accept its recommendation for free long-term care for everyone, whether they be in residential care, at home or elsewhere. My early-day motion following that Government decision was supported and signed by more than 100 hon. Members, so my concern was shared across the House.
The Health Committee’s report “Dying without dignity” is admirable, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and her Committee on producing it. It recommends free social care, which I am very pleased about. The reports by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, are also relevant to long-term care. The Chair of the Committee is going to speak later, so I will not talk about them too much. “Investigating clinical incidents in the NHS” focuses on the appalling number of deaths and refers to the Mid Staffs hospital disaster, which was shameful.
Subsequent to the Government’s refusal to pay for long-term care, there have been a series of forced privatisations of local authority care homes, which I opposed. In my own constituency, three first-class local authority care homes, where people would spend the last days of their lives, were forced to close and the residents were handed over to the private sector, which is driven by profit rather than concern for care alone. Some of the private homes are very good, but some are not. There have been some serious, well-publicised lapses of care, and there has been an ongoing crisis in the care homes world. I am concerned about that.
We congratulate ourselves on how we care for our elderly, particularly in the last days of their lives, but the situation is not all good. Some hon. Members have referred to the problems, including people not getting the palliative care they deserve and need. That is deeply worrying. We are all going to die one day and some of us are closer to that time than others, and we want to make sure that we and our families are cared for properly in those last difficult days. The subject needs more debate, more Government action and more support.
The reports are concerned about compassion. Undoubtedly, medical and care staff are overwhelmingly compassionate people, but it is not good that they are being put under pressure and made to work long hours; that they have too many residents to care for in the homes; and that they are being rushed because of concerns about costs and the desire to maximise profits. That means that people suffer. We have all had cases—I certainly have—where people have not been treated well in their homes or have not had the right care in a hospital or a care home simply because the staff are under pressure. People’s compassion starts to be diminished when they feel they are being pressured and not being treated with respect. Pay is one thing, but compassion is damaged when a staff member is looking after too many patients or residents, or rushing around too many homes with elderly single people who are in their last days. We have to make sure that compassion is to the fore in all these matters.
I have also said on many occasions that we do not spend enough on health and social care in general. We are rightly proud of the national health service and the principles on which it is based, but it is underfunded. We spend at least 2% less of our GDP—about £35 billion a year less—on health than France or Germany. With an injection of £35 billion a year, some of the stresses that cause the problems in hospitals in particular would go away. I also think, and said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) before the last election, that long-term care of all kinds ought to be provided on precisely the same basis as the national health service, completely free at the point of need. I believe that it should be provided by public servants rather than by the private sector. Only when we accept that we have to pay properly for the health and care service and resource it appropriately—that we have to pay people properly and make sure that we have enough staff—will we ensure that elderly people are cared for when they are alive, and that they die a dignified, pain-free and suffering-free death.
I will leave it there, although I would like to say a lot more. I hope that other Members will support some of the things that I have said.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to make a modest contribution to the debate. When I speak on matters to do with the NHS, the emphasis always seems to be on more resources, greater transparency, greater accountability and greater universal provision of reliable quality. Everything is important in the NHS—everything is a priority—but the resources are not infinite.
End-of-life care is a painful and emotive subject that is difficult to get right. As has been mentioned, about half a million—I think the actual figure was 470,000—people died in this country in 2014. They died in different circumstances, with wide variations in their experiences of what the NHS was able to offer. In my constituency, I acknowledge not only an excellent hospital and a number of GPs, but a high level of respect in our community for Salisbury hospice. One of the challenges is to arrive at a settlement that makes clear where the boundaries of responsibility lie between funding from the NHS and the charity element. Clearly, there is a massive amount of good will, but that must not be abused.
The national director at Hospice UK has said:
“The things that make a better death are so simple. It’s basic knowledge about good pain control and conversations with people about the things that matter”.
That goes to the heart of what is required. It will be about resources, to some extent. It will be about transparency, and greater reliability and sufficiency of provision. But it will also be about us, as leaders in our communities, being able to speak about our constituents’ experience of dying. Just as we put great emphasis on the provision of wills to ensure that people’s estates are in good shape, we need to ask people what choices they want to make about the way in which they are looked after and cared for in their last days. We need to ensure that people have greater awareness and make more informed choices so that we can make a better estimate of how to allocate resources and better integrate the different elements in our society.
One challenge that has frustrated me concerns free social care at the end of life. The Select Committee recommends in its excellent report that
“the Government clarify the eligibility criteria for the NHS Continuing Healthcare Fast Track Pathway”.
Some of my constituents have waited far too long to have such matters resolved; for example, I raised the situation of the Vaughans last week in business questions. Ambiguity and long delays in sorting things out cause enormous distress to families who are trying to make sensible provision.
I recognise the great emphasis that is placed on dying at home, and the tragedy that almost half—47%—of the 470,000 people who died in 2014 died in hospital, although the latest survey shows that only 3% of people who stated a preference wanted to die in hospital. By any measure, that is a failure of society, Governments and us all in not delivering what people want. That is not efficient for public services—it is more expensive—but it is also really unpleasant for the families involved when they cannot deliver what their loved ones want.
I hope that the Government will be able to give real and costed responses to the report and to all the various groups that have commented on the need for greater clarity about the Government’s intentions. Our constituents need that, and we need to do more to ensure that this does not become a taboo subject, but one on which there is greater engagement, so that we can secure better outcomes for those who are dying and for their families.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to speak on this issue. According to the End of Life Care Coalition, in the 12 months since the “Choice” review was published, almost 50,000 people experienced poor care during the last three months of their lives.
Some right hon. and hon. Members have clearly said that they are speaking from a family point of view, and I heard some of their speeches in the Chamber. Twelve months ago today my father passed away. My dad always wanted to die at home, but that was not possible. He had fallen out of bed and broken his femur. It was quite impossible for my mum to give him the care that he had to have, so he passed away in hospital. I have some experience of end-of-life care in hospitals, and I must say that I commend those involved: first, my mother, who was very loyally and religiously attentive to him, but also the nurses, who particularly helped and were very attentive and caring.
The 2015 report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, “Dying without dignity”, demonstrated the consequences of people dying without access to high-quality care and support. It highlighted cases where people had died in distressing circumstances, which had a lasting impact on their friends and families. That is what we are focusing on today. Unfortunately, research by the London School of Economics suggests that such situations are not as rare as they should be. The people who tend to miss out on palliative care are those with conditions other than cancer, those over the age of 85, single people and people from black and minority ethnic communities. Quite clearly, those are issues.
Research conducted by Ipsos MORI and Marie Curie—many of us met those from Marie Curie in Parliament yesterday—have found that seven out of 10 carers thought that people with a terminal illness were not getting all the care and support that they need. I commend the Marie Curie nurses for the hard and very attentive work that they do. Again, I have experienced that personally because a good friend of mine, Irene Brown, passed away just last week. Marie Curie helped her and her family greatly near the end of her life.
We have had ongoing worries and troubles about care homes in my constituency, with the threat of closures compounding the misery for people who need help the most and who already have to deal with an over-pressed and strained health service. I have to say, with respect, that the fact that such issues are not at the top of the priority list only serves to strengthen the disillusionment with the Government.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which was highlighted by some of the Marie Curie nurses I met, that while they very much want to do an excellent job in looking after they people they serve, they cannot do so all week but only on a couple of days, with less experienced staff coming in to fill in the gaps?
Jim Shannon
I obviously agree with the hon. Lady. I understand exactly what she says, as I think does everyone in the House. The Marie Curie nurses are special nurses and they do a grand job.
The issue of state-assisted suicide has been mentioned. We have had a debate in the House and a clear decision has been made, by an outstanding majority, that there is no need for it, and we will keep that going. We do not need to discuss the matter, because it has already been decided.
I want to refer quickly to the significant improvements to end-of-life care in Northern Ireland with the ambitious “Transforming your care” plan. Although there is still a long way to go, I ask the Minister sitting on the Front Bench, who is always very responsive, to look at what all the devolved regions have been doing, not least Northern Ireland, to ensure that the best strategy known and available nationwide is being implemented so that the figures I led with are reduced as much as possible and as fast as possible. We all know people or have known people going through this period of their life and, young or old, it is a reality that all of us will face some day. The UK Government and the devolved Governments need to do better on this issue to give ordinary, everyday, hard-working people the treatment they deserve at such a distressing time.
I will conclude on this point because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. If the Government have been taking action on this issue, they need to make that clear and publicise it, despite the obvious delay. In other words, are the Government giving end-of-life care the focus and money it needs, and are they working with charities and hospices to ensure that it is delivered? It is true that there should be no timescale for coming up with the best solution, but it is equally true that there has been insufficient explanation as to why the timescale has been delayed. I know that the Minister will respond to that. That delay is compounding the misery for people who are affected by this issue and their families. When it comes to end-of-life care, let us ensure that we deliver for our constituents.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I will draw on conversations that I have had with people around the country who have experienced a relative dying fairly recently, as well as on my own observations. I will not mention a particular case, because if I did have a difficult case, I would take it up privately in the usual way.
The first conclusion that I have formed, which I think the Secretary of State has wisely come to, is that a patient undergoing the last stages of their life and their family need a named doctor who is in charge. The family and the patient, when the patient has capacity, need to have access at reasonable times to that doctor to find out where they have got to and what the next stage is likely to be.
I believe that Ministers have put in place a requirement for there to be a named general practitioner for every patient when they are at home or in a care home. That is very welcome and let us hope that it works, so that there is someone people can turn to, whom they trust and know. However, when, as so often happens, people enter hospital and may not come out again, because of the way in which rosters and rotas work, it means that every day or every other day there is a different group of doctors and nurses in charge of them.
That can mean one of two things. Sometimes, the family and/or the patient are constantly retold very bad news because the new team feels that they have a duty to tell them. It may not be helpful for people to keep getting the same bad news. Alternatively, the family or the patient with capacity may want information at a particular time, but no one is up to speed because they have only recently taken over and have not had time to read the notes. Indeed, reading the notes is not necessarily as good as being continuously in charge of the patient and talking to them over the days or weeks in which the treatment is undertaken or as their last days draw near. I therefore urge Ministers to get behind the idea that it is best if there is a named senior doctor—perhaps a consultant or registrar.
Often, people in their last few weeks or months of life have complex and multiple medical conditions, so a series of different consultants are involved, but no one consultant feels as if they are ultimately in charge. I am told that in some hospitals patients are moved from ward to ward at very short notice, with different specialties in mind. The family then turn up and do not even know where the patient is, because they think that they will be where they last saw them. That can be very disruptive for the family. More care and attention is needed in some cases to deal with that issue.
The second issue, which has been mentioned by other colleagues, is the interface between social care and hospitals. All of us who visit hospitals as Members of Parliament and sometimes as family members will have observed that a very large number of patients in a lot of our wards are extremely elderly and very frail, with lots of complex medical conditions. Some of them may not be easy to treat. Others might be better off in a care home or at home, but there has been a failure to put together the set of services that they need.
I do not really believe that that is a money issue, because in many cases one could buy an awful lot of social care for the cost of the hospital bed that the person is occupying. Social care might even be cheaper. I am not recommending that we take people out of hospital because somewhere else is cheaper, but if they would be better off somewhere else, if they want to be somewhere else and if there are no longer any medical interventions that the hospital can make, it is sensible to take advantage of social care if it is also cheaper.
Kelvin Hopkins
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but when local authorities know that they have to pay for care when somebody comes out of hospital, they will try to persuade them to stay in hospital for as long as possible. Different budgets put different pressures on different institutions.
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman is right. Throughout the time he and I have been in the House, under Governments of different persuasions, we have all known about the problem, we have all said that we need to solve it and still we have not managed to do that. I hope that our current talented Ministers can do something that no previous groups of Ministers have been able to achieve. There is an experiment because, with the devolution models that Ministers are considering, if the health and social care budgets are put together under the same authority, the excuse that there is a budget row goes. One would hope that the best interests of the patient were dominant and that authorities would realise that, in some cases, the best interests of the patient also enabled them to save money through switching from an expensive hospital bed to a decent care package. That could be helpful, and I hope that Ministers will do that.
For the families of those who die, the need for care does not end at the moment of death. That is generally understood by the public sector, but there are serious problems with delivering the support and administrative back-up that families need when a loved one dies. Several people who have been through this recently told me that the first thing that happens is a delay in getting a death certificate. Without a death certificate, nothing can be done to settle things. People cannot even hold a funeral because they cannot instruct a funeral director until they have a death certificate.
Not only is there a delay in getting the death certificate from the medical staff at the hospital, but people cannot register the death because of the insistence on a face-to-face meeting with the registrar, which can mean a further delay of many days before a slot becomes available. Quite a lot of families therefore end up with one, two, three and four weeks of delay before they get the death certificate, which is necessary to trigger the funeral and any financial changes consequent on a person’s death.
The Government have introduced a sensible “Tell Us Once” system so that when a person dies, the family can fill in quite a complicated electronic form, which is meant to tell all Departments with which the dead person may have been involved what the Government need to know. There are two problems with that. First, families often do not have all the knowledge that they need. Unless they have that knowledge, the Government seem unable to cross-refer and discover that, for example, the person had a benefit as well as a pension. It would be helpful if Government computers talked to each other more adequately so that the Government could do more of the work and families just had to notify them of the death and did not have to know every detail of the dead person’s financial affairs.
Secondly, because the delays with the death certificate and registrar appointments often mean that registration of the death is delayed, the Government make payments to the deceased person, and the families, having used “Tell Us Once”, get a set of not terribly friendly letters—I appreciate that they have been dressed up a bit—saying, “Your dead relative owes us this much money”. The families cannot necessarily get their hands on that money, but they are none the less obliged to pay the Government back, at an unsettling time when they are mourning and grieving and were not expecting a tax or benefit bill.
In the interests of handling the families better, the Government should speed up their side of the administration so that the death can be registered promptly, the Government do not make wrong payments and the families are not faced with letters demanding money back when they have other things on their mind and are trying to deal with the hurt. It does not make it better when the Government say, “We’re very sorry you’ve had a loss” if they go on to say, “but you owe us this much money. The usual rules apply. See you in prison if you don’t pay”.
We need to improve greatly on dealing with the first few weeks for the poor grieving families, who do not necessarily know the process, are very lost because they have lost their loved one, and are not helped by delays and sometimes the incompetence of the regulatory authorities.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for her excellent work in leading the Health Committee. I will not repeat points that a number of Members have raised, but there is a consensus that the issue of end-of -life care is growing in prominence and importance. The debate on assisted dying last September drove that discussion, and since then a number of Adjournment debates have focused on why end-of-life care is so important.
We know that 480,000 deaths a year occur in England and according to Macmillan Cancer Support, only 53% of people die in a place of their choice. We know that there are gaps in provision—not just in access and quality, but also according to disease type. As a cancer nurse, I was fortunate to have access to excellent palliative care, not just locally but for patients nationally. However, for those suffering from many other diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, there is little or no access to good end-of-life care. As a result, there have been a number of reviews. We heard about the “Choice” review, which identified gaps and gave some solutions for meeting them, and last year the Health Committee delivered its report on how end-of -life care could be improved. The report by the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman, “Dying without dignity”, identified the same gaps. We know what the problems are, and now we need to deliver the solutions.
As this is an estimates debate, I will flag up the figures in those reports. We must invest £400 million annually in NHS community services to move end-of-life care out of hospitals—where most people do not want to die—and into the community, and we need roughly £100 million each year for local social services to provide the social care to back that up. That would deliver a saving of £370 million for the NHS and the acute services that are now picking those people up, but from my experience I think the savings will actually be much higher.
In the short time I have been an MP, many constituents have written to me, including an elderly gentleman of 92, who, a couple of weeks before the last Christmas that he would spend with his family, was stuck in hospital—not because of symptom or pain control, but for the lack of a feeding pump. He had a feeding pump in hospital, but because he wanted to go home to die and the community did not have one, he had to stay in hospital. That cost thousands of pounds a day, but more importantly it took precious time away from him and his family, just for the lack of a feeding pump. Such things cost a few pounds—I would have given the money myself if that is what it would have taken.
We know that £500 million would deliver district nurses to provide care, pharmacists, social services, and not just the seven-day-a-week NHS that we are proud we want to achieve, but the 24-hour care that most of those patients need. That would improve care and choice for those patients, and once that initial investment had been made, just £130 million a year would help to sustain it for health and social care. It would be money well spent if we could find it.
I bring good news for the Minister: we do not just need money. I make a plea for him to consider the Access to Palliative Care Bill that is currently finishing its passage through the other place, sponsored by Baroness Finlay. It shows that such an approach has a proven track record of delivering end-of-life care without needing a huge amount of investment, because it forces local CCGs to commission palliative care. That is what we are missing at the moment. Placing such care in the hands of CCGs makes them locally accountable, because what will deliver good palliative care in a London borough is very different from what will work in a rural constituency such as mine. It is important that CCGs take on that responsibility. I know from working in acute cancer care that unless something is commissioned and paid for, it does not happen.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does she recognise that there is a particular challenge when commissioners can seem almost to get something for nothing, with local hospices taking on more and more responsibility? It is important that local commissioners—wherever they are in the country—recognise that the services they rely on from hospices need to be paid for. As those services have increased in recent years, commissioners need to think about allocating more of their budget to them, which could then make savings for the other services that they commission.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. Those commissioning services realise their value. Hospices have taken up a lot of care. We all value our hospices, but that work is not necessarily valued financially. From working in cancer care, I know that my trust was commissioned to deliver day services, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. It was paid on a case-by-case basis. As soon as someone had finished their treatment and needed end-of-life care, however, everyone washed their hands of the responsibility because no one was getting paid for it. That is the reality of the situation. We need commissioning for end-of-life care to happen.
The Access to Palliative Care Bill, which has just gone through the other place, establishes four clear guidelines that would greatly improve end-of-life care without the money needed to back it up. First, on pain and symptom control, we should have an evidence base of what works for each disease and make sure that that is what happens. Secondly, there should be education and training for all staff and not just for those in end-of -life care. There is a huge amount of palliative and symptom control that staff, whatever their speciality—intensive care units, cardiac units, renal units and so on—can provide without needing specialist knowledge. All staff need to know is the point at which they need specialist advice. Simple education and training would enable that to happen and improve greatly the care that patients receive.
Research is the third guideline set out by Baroness Finlay in the Bill. Never underestimate the difference that research can make to end-of-life care. When I was a new nurse in the early ’90s, patients with hypercalcemia were admitted all the time. Hypercalcemia is when there is too much calcium in the bloodstream. Patients are confused and dehydrated, and they spend their last few days and weeks unable to communicate with their relatives. However, with research and the advent of bisphosphonates, it is very, very rare to see a case of hypercalcemia. Research into end-of-life care made that difference. Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes pointed out, having the CQC inspect end-of-life care would make a huge difference, not just in the acute setting but across the board.
Other Members want to speak on this important subject, so I will just say that if the £500 million needed to implement the “Choice” review is not available, that should not stop us from improving end-of-life care. Many of the aspects of the Access to Palliative Care Bill would make a huge difference to patients and their families. I urge the Minister to consider them in his closing remarks.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this very important debate. It is pleasing that, as we have heard from so many other hon. Members, end-of-life care in the UK is ranked No. 1. That is not good enough, however, because there are so many variations across the whole of the UK. I am sure the reason why we are ranked No. 1 is mainly due to the wonderful hospice movement that we have heard so much about. It contributes so much to so many thousands of lives every day across the whole country. It is the medical professionals, the volunteers, the fundraisers and the donors who really make the difference. As I said, the system is not perfect and we still have an awfully long way to go. There are too many times when end-of-life care is a lottery, and that should not be the case.
My constituency has actually done quite well out of that lottery. We have an amazing hospice called Treetops Hospice Care. It is quite unusual because it does not have any beds. It provides all its care either as day care or in patients’ homes. As a consequence, the number of people who are able to die in their own homes in my constituency is much higher than in other parts of the country. In the past, Treetops has benefited from two lots of capital funding: in 2010 it managed to get capital funding to extend its day care centre; and in 2013 it got capital funding to build a counselling and bereavement centre, which has been so valuable to those who have suffered the loss of their loved ones. One of my messages for the Minister, therefore, is please do not forget about capital funding. It is so important to hospices across the whole country.
The chief executive of Treetops asked me to say that money invested in hospices often saves the NHS money because hospices can deliver end of life care so much more effectively. The NHS is not for the end of life; it is for acute episodes, not best designed for the time when people need to be in quite a different environment.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, we need to realise that hospices are not only for people with cancer; they are for people with life-limiting conditions. There still seems to be a bit of fear about this: if people are told that they need palliative care and end-of-life care and they do not have cancer, they get confused. We need to make sure that our messaging is a lot clearer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about gaps in the service. My local CCG acknowledged gaps in the services it was commissioning. It was lucky enough to get funding from Macmillan to look at how to pull together the end-of-life care it was able to commission. It realised that the issue is not always about commissioning hospital beds or drugs; it can be about something really simple.
People coming towards the end of their lives need extra laundry, and for the people who are caring for them, having to do all the laundry is, sadly, about the last straw when it comes to the caring commitments they make. Our CCG identified that a local charity, Community Concern Erewash, has a laundry service. The CCG is able to contract out to a local charity to provide the laundry service for those going through end-of-life care. This means that many more people will be able to stay in their own homes because those caring for them can provide the emotional care without being distracted by the need to provide laundry. That provides one practical example of how it is possible to invest money wisely to make end-of-life care so much better.
All too often, our focus is on end of life care for adults, but we must never forget the importance of providing choice and support for children and young people at the end of their lives and of the subsequent bereavement counselling for their families. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by the organisation, Together for Short Lives, in providing such counselling. The more we discuss subjects such as end-of-life care in this place, the more open people become about talking about such a difficult subject; they feel more able to discuss it. We never used to discuss cancer, but now we do, so it will be possible for us to talk about end-of-life care in a much more open way. As individuals, as parents, as children and as spouses, we should be brave enough to talk about end of life.
Our healthcare professionals should also be brave enough to talk about the issues. I know from personal experience that when a Macmillan palliative care nurse had that conversation with my mum, it made the last few months of her life so much easier. It made it easier for us, too, as we no longer needed to tread carefully on the subject. Mum could openly talk about her wishes—what she wanted done with certain bits of jewellery, for example, and other things she wanted to communicate to us. When she did pass away six months after that initial conversation with the end-of-life care nurse, we knew her wishes and what to do, which made it easier for us.
Talking about end-of-life care and knowing the wishes of the patient makes it so much easier for the healthcare professionals and the relatives—and, most importantly, for the patients. We must do whatever is possible to make sure that the final wishes of those with terminal illnesses are met, so we can ensure that they can have good deaths.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I hardly feel worthy of catching your eye today, Mr Deputy Speaker, having not been in my place for a question earlier today. I apologise to you and to Mr Speaker for that. I was, in fact, preparing for this debate, as Chairman of my Select Committee. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Select Committee, for her report and for securing time to debate end-of-life care on the Floor of the House.
I shall wantonly use this opportunity to promote one of the reports produced by my Select Committee, the then Public Administration Select Committee. I am not just talking about the report on dying with dignity, which followed a report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. That report underlines why my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is absolutely on the right track in making her investigations.
We have urged the Government to recognise the shortcomings that exist in many of our health institutions. People are not recognised to be dying when they are dying, their symptoms are not addressed, and there is poor symptom control. People have watched loved ones dying in pain because of ineffective symptom management. As has been mentioned today, there has been poor communication. Professionals have failed to engage in open conversations with patients and family members. There have been inadequate out-of-hours services, and people have suffered because of difficulties in gaining access to palliative care out of hours. There has been poor care planning, and delays in diagnosis. And so it goes on.
What strikes me about so many of the accounts that we have heard this afternoon is the lack of learning, the sense of helplessness, the sense that this is just what happens in our health system. That is what drove my Committee, at the end of the last Parliament, to produce the report entitled “Investigating clinical incidents in the NHS”. Imagine what it would be like if we had an NHS in which, whenever something went wrong, there was a proper and open investigation, followed by learning from what had occurred—without blame—to prevent a repetition. So often, in debates such as this, we hear about the same things occurring again and again.
Our report revealed that
“there are 12,000 avoidable hospital deaths every year. More than 10,000 serious incidents are reported”
to the NHS, in England alone,
“out of a total of 1.4 million mostly low-harm or no-harm incidents annually. There were 338 recorded “never events” (such as wrong site surgery) during 2013-14”,
and there were 174,872 written complaints. The then latest estimate of clinical negligence liabilities on the NHS balance sheet was £26.1 billion. If we could get just 10% of that right, we would save millions of pounds. If we could avoid 10% of those incidents, we would save the NHS huge amounts of money.
We looked into the way in which other safety-critical industries dealt with safety management and incident investigation. The most notable is aviation, but similar considerations apply to marine accidents, accidents in the North sea oil industry, and the work of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, which was set up after the Paddington rail crash. I learned a great deal when I was shadow Secretary of State for Transport at the time of that rail crash. For instance, I observed how hopeless it was that the safety regulator of the railway, the Health and Safety Executive, was responsible for investigating its own failings in the event of a rail accident.
The Committee concluded that what was needed was an independent clinical investigation service that would investigate untoward incidents in the health sector. It would have to have three key elements. First, it must provide a “safe space” in which clinicians, NHS managers, patients and patients’ families could discuss things without fear of recrimination or reprisals. Such a service does not currently exist in the health service. No one dares speak for fear of getting the blame. In aviation, it is quite normal for pilots to report each other and report themselves without fear or favour, because that safe space exists.
Secondly, the service
“must be independent of providers, commissioners and regulators”.
There is no such independent investigative capacity in the NHS. We have a higgledy-piggledy arrangement for investigating clinical incidents. It might be local, it might involve a regulator, but it ends up with the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box and calling for a public inquiry. That is when we really know that it has all gone wrong. The Francis report was very much a jumping-off point for us.
The third requirement is that any such clinical incidents investigation service should have the power to publish reports and to disseminate its recommendations and learning. This should not be about blaming people; it should be about learning. I am very pleased that the Government accepted our recommendations and that they have set up an expert advisory group. The group has been holding discussions for many months on how to implement the proposals.
I am sad to say, however, that three things are still lacking from the Government’s proposals for what they are going to call the health safety investigation branch, which will operate in a clinical incident investigation capacity. The Government’s refusal to contemplate primary legislation on this matter means that there will be no safe space. Their refusal to create new public sector bodies outside the framework of the NHS will mean that the health safety improvement branch will be domiciled within NHS Improvement, which is one of the regulators from which it needs to be independent. And the Government’s refusal to contemplate primary legislation means, of course, that there will be no primary legislation.
I think the Minister understands these matters very well, but I have to say to him that if, having accepted our report, the Government go ahead and create the health safety investigation branch of the NHS on this basis, they will not be implementing our findings, which they say they have accepted. It is sad that we are going to lose the opportunity to do this, and I very much hope that the Government will continue to think about introducing at least a draft Bill that would enable us to work in the longer term towards the primary legislation that we need in order to set this up. That would transform lives, and the NHS, in a way that nothing else could do.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I very much appreciate the opportunity to talk about this important topic today. As a GP, I have been involved in delivering palliative care—as has my wife, who is a district nurse. It was mentioned earlier that during the debates on the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill last year, end-of-life care was highlighted as an important topic that needed to be discussed. We have a world-class palliative care service in parts of this country. Indeed, many other countries look at our hospice movement and want to adopt it for themselves. My local hospice, St Kentigern, which I visited recently, provides excellent care as well as guidance to clinicians, as do so many hospices. However, there are variations in different areas of our country, between the care provided by different clinicians and between the palliative care available for differing conditions.
I have joined the Health Committee since the general election, so I was not part of the inquiry that led to the report. I do not intend to provide an exhaustive list of issues that I feel need addressing, but I thought it might be helpful to give the House a GP’s perspective on some issues that are important to me. The lack of prior planning and discussion for patients is a very real issue. There is certainly a need for more information for patients, carers and family members. It is worth noting, however, that health policy can influence patients’ awareness of developing conditions, and I would like to mention dementia in this context.
The Government have focused on dementia in recent times, and the Prime Minister’s challenge has been quite successful in increasing diagnosis rates. The rate has now gone up to about 67%. A diagnosis gives patients the opportunity to look to the future and decide how they see the end of their life. Sadly, the diagnosis rate in my area of Wales is only 43%, which shows how health policy can influence the debate in many ways.
Care homes are clearly critical to end-of-life care. My practice certainly felt that it was able to contribute to this domain through a local enhanced service that allowed oversight by one practice and continuity of care, which is extremely important. That service also helped to prevent unnecessary admissions to hospitals. It resulted in better opportunities for staff training.
Clearly, there is pressure on hospice beds and community hospital beds. There is also a need to address privacy in the acute secondary hospital setting, where hospital is the right place for end-of-life care. We know that so many patients wish to die at home, and out-of-hours services are crucial to that. We have heard a lot about a seven-day NHS in recent times and this is one crucial area where providing services at weekends and in the evenings is so important. If a patient is waiting for a delayed period for a syringe driver, for instance, that prolongs their discomfort. We also know that there are limited community services in some instances, particularly for children.
I have seen discharge liaison services in hospitals moving heaven and earth to meet patients’ wishes and allow a death at home. Those need to be focused upon to ensure that, wherever possible, that can take place, with adequate support for carers once the patient is discharged home. Finally, clinicians need the confidence to identify what constitutes an end-of-life situation and to manage it appropriately, and so clearly there is a need for education. One in five of those who die is not receiving the end of life care that it is felt they should receive, so clearly there is still much work to be done, despite the best efforts of so many in this country.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As has been mentioned by several Members, we all share one thing in common: we are all mortal. Although some people think they are not, we will all die. In this House, we make decisions about provision for things that might happen, but this is something that absolutely will happen to all of us and so we all have a vested interest in making sure those services are as good as possible. Three quarters of people who die do so expectedly, which means they die of an ongoing illness they already have. About a third of those are cancer patients, and the palliative care system has focused on them since its inception in the 1960s. As has been said, we should rightly be proud of the fact that the UK is listed as No. 1, but that is largely to do with inputs and resources; it is not always to do with outcomes, because we cannot always measure those. A lot of that top position we owe to the hospice movement. We owe it to people such as Dame Cicely Saunders at St Christopher’s hospice. Everyone here knows my background, but even when I was a medical student this was my interest. My fourth year dissertation, “On Death and Dying—Home, Hospice, Hospital”, was written at a time when we had hardly any hospices and this was a new-fangled specialty.
The problem is that that is not the choice people are getting, as we have heard from Members from across the House. In Scotland, we did an audit in 2010 and again in 2013 which involved every single person in hospital on one day and following them up for a year. That showed that a third of people in hospital—it was exactly the same both years—will die within a year. That backs up a well-known fact that the majority of healthcare is spent on people in the last year of their lives. Some 10% of those people actually died on that admission, and the average stay of someone who dies in hospital is about two weeks. Some of those will be deaths we did not expect—they will be things that went wrong. However, a lot of them—three quarters—will be people with an expected illness. It is not just wasteful and it is not just futile, but for the family and the patient it is distressing.
We have heard about how people get stuck in hospital when they would like to be somewhere else. The question is: why? The No. 1 reason is that we do not talk about it; the family have not talked to the patient and the patient has not talked to the doctor—nobody has broached the subject. As someone who has been a cancer surgeon for 30 years, I know that it is difficult. I have often had to help families and patients open that conversation. There are people who say, “I won’t tell my mother”, or, “I won’t tell the children.” The family needs to be front and centre with this. One of the advantages of being at home is that people are in their own intimate space together. They have one luxury: the opportunity to say goodbye. People may have a row, go out the door, slam it and never come back. That is the worst loss. People need a chance to prepare. They need to make sure that they are at peace, that everything is organised, that they are not worrying and fretting, and that their families have the chance to say that they love each other. There is also the need to reconcile. Perhaps that person who went off in a huff 20 years ago comes back. That last bit of time is very precious.
In 2010, Scotland conducted a review of the “do not resuscitate” policy. We moved to what was described as best practice. That answers some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—people being scooped up by the ambulance and taken somewhere else. This was not just a tick box that the nurse or the doctor went through; it was a discussion that was shared with everyone.
The core person in all this is the GP. The GP provides the continuity. In Scotland, the summary care record is used for out-of-hours care. The GP must register a patient on the palliative care register, and that is automatically shared. If, at the weekend, someone is called in, they know what the aim is, which is that that person wants to die at home. If someone has been kept at home for months with lots of support, there is then nothing worse than if, in the last 24 hours, the family panics—“Mum’s got worse. What do I do? Dial 999”—and the person ends up in an ambulance and then in hospital. That is just a disaster.
As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, we need to tackle training. We need to train our students, our doctors, our nurses and our carers in all the settings, because people will die in all the settings. People will still die in hospital. That is unavoidable, as was said by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, but it is not an excuse for poor care or poor communication.
Ayr hospice in my constituency provides the liaison services to the hospital in which I worked, so we had palliative care consultants, liaison nurses and training for other staff. We also have a beautiful hospice that provides outreach and home care, and is trying to educate the whole community.
In Scotland, the funding of hospices is 50:50, whereas here, as we have heard, the average is a third, so it is very variable. Hospices now talk about the increased complexity of commissioning. Many of them deal with multiple clinical commissioning groups—the average is four—and they feel that they are having to jump through many hoops in exchange for whatever bit of finance they get. Hospices need to be put on a safe financial basis, and they also need to be able to plan their funding for the future.
We must not forget the care home. By 2030, a quarter of us will die in a care home, and that is the thing that many of us are most frightened of. That is because we have a sense of it as a place that we are tidied away to, and we fear that. We need to improve the quality of care homes and to individualise the care. We also need to introduce this end of life and palliative care philosophy to those homes.
Of course, the prize is dying at home. That is what 80% of people choose. In Scotland, we are lucky because we already have free personal care. Patients who are under 65 and have had a DS1500, which defines them as within six months of death, get free social care. We do not have the barrier that there is in England of either the difficulty of paying or the sheer time it takes to go through means-testing to get care organised. None the less, we have our challenges. The social care has to be in place. We know that all local authorities are struggling to balance their budgets. As has been mentioned by Macmillan, Marie Curie, Nuffield and the palliative care review five years ago, this would save money in the long term. However, the money cannot just be taken from the hospital and given to social care or to palliative care, because the hospital would fall over. We have to double-invest initially because, as with a Rubik’s cube, we need that little bit of space to move the first piece before anything else will happen.
This has been going around since 2011, and we are calling on the Minister to grasp the nettle and rise to the challenge. We need to follow the patient and support them through the whole journey and, as was mentioned, to support people after that journey through bereavement, to ensure that they have access to support and are not left struggling after the loss of a loved one.
It is well known that people will cope with bereavement better if their loved one has had a good journey. As was mentioned, in the assisted dying debate we threw down the challenge that if we voted against that, we had to provide high quality palliative care, to allow people to end their journey not in fear, not in pain and not feeling a burden. I call on the Minister and the Government to rise to that challenge.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I join other Members in thanking the Chairs of the Select Committees for the work on the reports that we are debating today. I was a member of the Health Committee when it produced the end-of-life care report.
Although Ministers have talked of rising to the challenge of improving palliative care, they have yet to take the action needed. They have not responded to the independent panel’s “Choice” review report published in February 2015. I know that the Minister and his colleagues repeatedly promised to respond to that report by the end of 2015, although I note that the Minister has recently changed to saying they will respond “soon”. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) noted that 48,000 people have experienced poor end-of-life care since the “Choice” review was published. Given that figure, we need a swift Government response now, and I ask the Minister to tell us when he expects that response.
As many Members have mentioned, the palliative care workforce works extremely hard to provide good care for people nearing the end of their life. We owe a debt of gratitude to our hospices, palliative care staff in hospitals, and Macmillan and Marie Curie nurses, because when end-of-life care is delivered well, the benefits to the patient and the family are immeasurable; when it is delivered badly, it can cause considerable pain and distress to those involved.
Even though we have the excellent St Ann’s hospice in my constituency and we have one of the best hospitals in the country in Salford, I have dealt with cases in my constituency where end-of-life care has not been delivered as it should have been, leaving bereaved family members distressed and anguished. The National Council for Palliative Care has said that despite high aspirations,
“there is still unacceptable variation, which would not be tolerated in any other area of practice.”
The ombudsman’s report shows us the consequences of people dying without access to high-quality care and support.
In my constituency I have had cases with similar failures to those that the ombudsman highlights—not recognising that the patient is dying, not responding to their needs, poor symptom control, poor communication and inadequate out-of-hours services. One of the cases I dealt with happened in 2005 and was included in a previous report by the ombudsman. Another occurred in 2013. It worries me that I have had constituents suffering the same heartache caused by poor end of life care when it is clear what needs to be done to improve their care.
My constituents died without dignity and in pain. Their carers and family members were left to run around trying to find suitable pain control for them, which meant that they lost the chance to spend precious time with the family member who was dying. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), has just highlighted for us how important it is to have those last few hours with a loved one. The Health Committee report recommended that a named clinician support the co-ordination of care. Clearly, that would help in so many cases, and the idea was supported by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).
We know that each year around 500,000 people die in England and Wales and half of those deaths occur in hospitals, so we must make sure that end-of-life care is fit for purpose in all settings and that staff are trained to recognise when someone is nearing the end of life. However, the End of Life Care Coalition tells us that NHS England has made no substantial move to invest in palliative or end-of-life care. Investment in those services is essential to ensure that they are co-ordinated and that people receive the correct care wherever they are.
The Health Committee report asks the Government and NHS England to set out how universal, seven-day access to palliative care could become available to all patients, including patients with a non-cancer diagnosis. Marie Curie tells us that only one in five trusts in England provide face-to-face access to specialist palliative care seven days a week from nine to five, despite this being the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence standard since 2004, and only 2% of trusts provide a 24/7 face-to-face service. People should not have to die in pain and distress because trusts are not complying with a decade-old NICE standard.
A common theme in the Health Committee’s reports has been the need to ensure that choice is on offer. People want to have choice. Will the Government review the choice on offer for children and young people at the end of their lives, as they have done for adults? I have a further concern that without proper investment in community services and specialist palliative care services, choice will remain restricted. In the previous Parliament the number of district nurses fell by 2,400, and many other community nursing posts, particularly senior posts, were cut. With such a hollowing out and deskilling of the community sector, I am concerned that the nurses who provide end-of-life care services are coming under increasing pressure, without the time or specialist skills to provide the quality care and compassion needed at the end of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) raised the serious issue of the level of cuts to adult social care. We know that we have already lost £4.6 billion from adult social care budgets since 2010. The King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust have said that there will be a gap of around £3 billion in social care by the end of this Parliament. As we approach the Budget, it is important to acknowledge that the Government’s funding plans will not address that gap. The Local Government Association reported last week that councils are looking at council tax options that will raise only £370 million this year, which is less than the Government predicted. The promised better care funding is back-loaded, with nothing this year and only £100 million next year. In my local authority area, Salford, we will raise only £1.6 million this year, compared with cuts of £15 million since 2010.
GPs are also finding that they are under increasing pressure. In a recent survey, around 70% said that their workload is sometimes unmanageable, and over half said that the service they provide has deteriorated in the past year. One factor that is key to providing quality end-of-life care—we have heard about this in this debate—is ensuring that doctors and nurses have time to have the conversations needed with patients, families and other care providers, but the funding and staffing pressures I mentioned will not help staff to have time for those conversations.
The Health Committee’s report called for free adult social care at the end of life, and we made that a commitment in the Labour party manifesto, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned. In recommending that, there is clearly the issue of where we find the funding that we have talked about in this debate. It is clear that offering better support in the community would mean fewer hospital admissions. Too many people approaching death are forced to spend long periods of time in hospital owing to a lack of social care or alternative support options, and that is unsustainable.
The Chair of the Health Committee referred to the Nuffield Trust’s evaluation of the Marie Curie nursing service, which found that people cared for by a Marie Curie nurse had total care costs of around £500 less per person, and hospital stays and costs were often avoided. Only 8% of Marie Curie patients died in hospital, compared with 42% of people without a Marie Curie nurse. The End of Life Care Coalition thinks that those results can be replicated in other palliative care nursing services. Free adult social care at the end of life could also help to reduce the inequalities that currently exist in end of life care services due to age, gender, diagnosis, geography and deprivation, as has been mentioned.
We have heard that 88% of palliative care in-patients and 75% of new referrals were for people with a cancer diagnosis, even though cancer accounts for only around 29% of deaths. Older people receive less specialist palliative care than other age groups: only 16% is provided to people aged 85 or over, although 39% of deaths occur in that age group. We should be delivering services that enable someone living with dementia and someone living with cancer to receive the same quality of end-of-life care.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government will implement free social care for people nearing the end of life? The Opposition believe that altering the funding criteria for NHS continuing healthcare is not enough. He said in response to an earlier debate on end- of-life care:
“We have enough paper evidence. We know what looks good, how to make it happen and that it needs to happen, and we know that many people die in circumstances that leave much to be desired.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 1089.]
We need action. We need a response to the “Choice” review, describing what action the Government will take on the key issues of choice, funding for end-of-life care and social care services, co-ordination and the identification and support of carers. If end-of-life care is the litmus test for health and social care services, we are currently failing it for too many people. We need good quality, compassionate end-of-life care to be available so that each person nearing the end of life can feel supported and safe in the knowledge that they will receive the very best care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
What a fantastic debate this has been on a most important subject, with many Members bringing their personal experiences to the attention of the House, and with such agreement on both sides about what constitutes good end-of-life care and what we need to do to improve the situation.
As Members on both sides have acknowledged, the situation is already very good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) pointed out, The Economist recently rated end-of-life care in this country the finest in the world. The hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) said that that fact made her proud to be British, and I am sure many others share that sentiment. My hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Poole (Mr Syms) said that our end-of-life care was a sign of Britain at its best, not just because we are doing well compared with other countries, but because that care exemplifies many of the qualities we cherish in our communities—community work, giving and generosity, especially in our hospice movement, which is unique to this country, and of which we are proud. There is, therefore, much to be proud about.
Our end-of-life care comes from a deep tradition, which, in its current incarnation, goes back to Dame Cicely Saunders, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) pointed out, but far further back too, into our medieval history. It is about care for the dying and an understanding, as many Members have pointed out, that the special time at the end of life should be cherished and that we should respect care at that time as much as we would other parts of people’s care.
However, as hon. Members also pointed out, there is much too much variation. The hon. Member for Burnley said that that in itself is something of which we should be ashamed, and I agree with her about that too. There is exceptional care in this country for people approaching the end of life, but there is also, I am afraid, care that is not good enough. Constituents have put that to hon. Members across the House, and we need to change that in this Parliament.
We need to eradicate the variation I mentioned; to quote Bevan, we need to universalise the best—that is one of the foundation stones of our NHS. Indeed, that was a promise made during the assisted dying debate. As the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for Central Ayrshire pointed out, exceptional palliative care is the foundation of all care in the NHS, and it should be the expectation of everyone reaching the end of their life. That is where I would like to start in replying to hon. Members’ remarks.
The quality of care we provide for people in hospitals and at home is a mark of how we think about the national health service and the care services we provide. We should not think of them purely as curative services; they work as curative services only if that cure is on a foundation of care, and that is why getting this issue right is so important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said this issue should be a priority, not just because of its importance in and of itself, but because it points to many of the efficiencies we can make in the health service and the care sector, which will free up money for care elsewhere in the sector.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said end-of-life care embodied compassion in the service, and that is why we should place especial importance on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that respect at the end of life was something all clinicians and all others involved in care should show. Again, if we are able to achieve that for people for whom there is no cure, we can also do something remarkable for those elsewhere in the service, for whom there is, happily, the prospect of a cure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) said we needed to make particular changes in different settings, whether that was improving privacy in hospitals, improving discharge to home or improving the ability to look after people in their permanent residence, be that at home or in a care home. We need to take a range of different approaches in order to eradicate the variation that so many hon. Members have talked about. People can be expected to achieve choice only if a consistent quality of care is offered in all settings.
Hon. Members have pointed out the need to address funding, and NHS England is looking at the different currencies of care. We need also to look at the measurement of how care is provided. I have taken note of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Faversham and Mid Kent about the need to produce consistent measurements for quality of care at a local level. I hope to be able to deal with that in the not too distant future.
We need to look at the accountability of clinicians. I point Members in the direction of the “gold line” offered by Airedale NHS Foundation Trust. I take very seriously the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who talked about named doctors, and refer him to the Secretary of State’s comments of 29 October where he expressly said that there should be a named consultant for patients in hospital. I hope that we will be able to extend that principle further afield, as we already have done in the course of the previous Parliament.
This matter should be addressed in a holistic manner. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned the need for the care of young people to be accommodated within these plans, and I intend to take that forward. We also need to consider those who are very young.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and for Erewash (Maggie Throup) referred to people who do not have cancer, especially those suffering from Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, falling out of the safety net in some areas. All those points were well made and will be taken into account.
I want to reflect on the comments of many Members about the importance of having a conversation. Professionals need to be brave, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned the need for confidence from professionals and for education.
John Redwood
Will my hon. Friend take up my point about relatives handling the death and the lack of a medical certificate or a death certificate?
Ben Gummer
I will. I take my right hon. Friend’s comments on that very seriously. We are looking at the whole system of death certification, and I hope to be able to come to the House in that regard in the not too distant future. His points were very well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the duty that we all have to ensure that there is a better conversation between patients and clinicians; we should all be able to have that conversation so that we can break what my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent described as a taboo. At this point, not just as a Government or as Ministers but as a society, we need to grasp the nettle. We will all need to be involved so that we can give people the confidence to talk about such matters.
Barbara Keeley
It sounds as though the Minister is about to conclude his remarks, but he has not yet said when the Government will respond to the “Choice” review, which I asked about, as did several other Members. That is very important.
Ben Gummer
As I have made clear publicly, we will respond in short order to the “Choice” review, but I want to get this right. It is important that we make the content of the response as good as possible, and I do not want to compromise on that. Moreover, the hon. Lady’s party did not bring forward such a review.
This has been a very good debate on all sides. I am delighted by the cross-party support for the need to make changes. I hope that we will return to this debate in the weeks and months ahead and will be able to continue making a real change in the way that we approach death and end-of-life care in this country.
Dr Wollaston
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate and for making so many important points about how we can roll out the very best care and make it available to all of our constituents. I am disappointed that the Minister has not told us when he will respond to the “Choice” review, because it has been a year since its publication. As we have heard, a number of reports have set out what needs to be done. This is now the time for action and for the Minister to set out when it will take place.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just concluded two days of debate on the Government’s estimates, but the estimated expenditure itself has not been debated. At 7 o’clock, we will be asked to authorise the Government’s spending plans for Departments of State—some £600 billion of public money—without there having been any debate whatsoever about them. How can that possibly be right, and what should Scottish Members of Parliament do now that we are effectively banned from voting on English-only legislation that may have a Barnett consequential? We were told that that would be considered in the estimates process, but we are not getting the chance—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Wishart, you have made your point very well time and again, and I understand why you are frustrated. As you know, it has been agreed by the House and that is what the Standing Orders say. We all know that it is not the Chair who is responsible.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 275 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 8B, 8C, 9B and 9C.
Before Clause 4
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 8B and 8C and the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 9B and 9C.
Priti Patel
Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish data annually on four low-income statistics. Let me start by being very clear about what the Government are not doing in these amendments: we are not returning to the broken state of affairs in the Child Poverty Act 2010; we are not returning to a policy approach driven by flawed income measures; and we are not compromising on the new life chances measures and the approach that we have set out in the Bill. Income measures do not drive the right action. They focus the Government’s finite resources on the symptoms of child poverty, not the root causes.
Let me be clear on what these amendments are about. They provide a further guarantee that information on low income will be made available for all to see, every year. We have repeatedly given commitments on that throughout the passage of the Bill, in both Houses. The “Households below average income” publication, which provides a range of low-income data, already has statutory protection as a national statistics product. We are now reinforcing that with a new statutory duty to publish those data annually. Three of the four income statistics—relative low income, combined low income and material deprivation, and absolute low income—are already routinely published in the HBAI publication.
Our commitment goes beyond the data that are already published. It will also place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish new data annually on children living in persistent low-income households. The information will be based on a new data source, and the first figures will be published before the end of the 2016-17 financial year. We believe that those data are a useful addition, because they tell us about families who are stuck on low incomes.
However, although we have given full statutory guarantees that those low-income data will be published annually, we will not commit to the Government’s laying a report on them to Parliament. Reporting to Parliament on those statistics would incentivise Governments to take the wrong action and would simply continue to drive actions, such as direct income transfers, that fail to tackle the root causes of child poverty. The duty to publish low-income data is fundamentally different from reporting on or setting targets for them, and Opposition Members should not confuse the two.
We need to move away from the flawed “poverty plus a pound” approach that income measures incentivise. Resources are finite, and it is crucial that the Government prioritise the actions that will make the biggest difference to children. The evidence is clear that tackling worklessness and low educational attainment will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances. That is why the Government will report to Parliament on their life chances measures of worklessness and educational attainment every year.
We are also committed to publishing a number of non-statutory measures annually, including family stability, drug and alcohol dependence and problem debt, but we firmly believe that any move to report on those low-income measures would divide Government’s efforts and undermine the new life chances approach, which will bring about the transformative change that we all want to see. I urge hon. Members to support the motion to agree with amendments 1B, 1C and 1D.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is really unhelpful, when we look at poverty, to focus on relative income measures? If there is a recession and incomes fall, poverty will appear to have got better when it has actually got worse. We need to look differently at poverty and focus on its underlying causes rather than on relative income measures.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend highlights the fundamental purpose of the changes that we are making. We are focusing on the root causes: life chances, and key aspects such as worklessness and educational attainment.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I have two very quick points to make. First, no Government over the next 10 years will have the resources that previous Governments had to drive their counter-poverty programme by increasing cash transfers. We might wish that it were different, but we need to grow up. Secondly, may I push the Minister further on whether the Government are open to looking at birth readiness, toddlerhood and school readiness as additional key indicators if we are, within existing resources, to make a real difference to the life chances of the poorest children?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me and, importantly, highlights the significance of the Government’s work on life chances. That will cover the whole range of ages, because it is of fundamental importance that the Government provide the right measures to support people throughout their lives.
I turn to the employment and support allowance work-related activity component, and the universal credit limited capability for work element measures. I remind the House why the changes are being made. As we stated when we last debated the measures, the change is urgently needed to ensure that the right incentives—and, importantly, support—are available to help more people with disabilities and health conditions to move closer to, and into, employment. We have experienced record employment levels and strong jobs growth over the past few years, but the benefits have bypassed the majority of those who are stuck on ESA. Only one in 100 ESA claimants in the WRAG moves off benefits each month, compared with one in five jobseeker’s allowance claimants. That cannot be right, and the Government believe that people with health conditions and disabilities deserve better.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My understanding from our debate on the matter last week is that the Government intend to put an extra £100 million into supporting that group. However, will the Minister confirm that the savings she plans to make from the measure are much greater—some £600 million?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will know from the Bill and the impact assessments the fiscal savings that will result from the measure. Fundamentally, we are making the change so that we can provide long-term support. For that reason, I think that all hon. Members will look forward to it.
We are committed to tackling the problem that too few people are moving off benefits and being supported into employment. There are economic, social and moral arguments for ensuring that those who are able to work can work, and that they are supported into work. Work is the most effective way to improve the wellbeing of individuals, their families and their communities.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Government’s equalities watchdog has said that there is
“very little in the way of evidence”
to show that what the Government are trying to do will support disabled people back into work. In the last five years, the number of working-age disabled people has fallen, and the Government speak from a track record of failure. Are disabled people not right to be sceptical about what is about to happen? What direct evidence can the Minister offer about the support that will be delivered to disabled people?
Priti Patel
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his participation in the Public Bill Committee and during the Bill’s passage through the House, the Government are committed to bringing in reforms. As I will shortly come on to say, the reforms will be set out in a White Paper later this year. Importantly—we are optimistic; we really are—the White Paper will outline our plans to reform further the help to support people with health conditions and disabilities into work.
Neil Coyle
In the past five years—in fact, in the past six years, during which the coalition and this Government have been in office—the number of disabled people of working age in work has fallen, the Government have closed Remploy factories, the number of disability employment advisers in Jobcentre Plus has fallen by 20% and the number of people supported by the Access to Work programme has fallen.
Priti Patel
I will repeat my starting premise: we are more positive and optimistic for people with health conditions and disabilities. Support through the Access to Work programme has increased. We have great initiatives, such as the Disability Confident campaign, which is supporting people back into work. The hon. Gentleman may want to join us, perhaps by hosting a Disability Confident event in his constituency. I would very much welcome such support. I think that we should be optimists. This Government are committed to halving the employment disability gap, which all Members of the House should welcome.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s ambition, which I share, to halve the employment disability gap, and the pathway that will be a crucial part of the White Paper. Will she provide reassurance that the good intentions in relation to the Lords amendments—identifying those affected in the work-related activity group, the impact on them and their wellbeing, and having better information, as well as tailored support—will very much be part of the imminent White Paper? Can we have some reassurance about that process before the changes start to have an impact?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will know this, but let me tell the House that I have met a number of colleagues who, quite rightly, want to know more about the White Paper. In relation to the changes that will be made, they have expressed concerns about the content and direction of the White Paper. I want to make it clear that this is an ongoing dialogue. I will continue to engage with all colleagues in the House, as well as stakeholders and charities, which have a valuable contribution to make and are interested in this area. In particular, my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) have raised with me their desire for the reforms to produce the right outcome. I and the Government share that desire. Importantly, we will work together to make sure that we get the right outcomes.
Priti Patel
I will not give way. We are pressed for time, so I want to make some progress.
As the Secretary of State said last summer, the purpose of the reforms is to ensure that we give people with disabilities and health conditions all the appropriate and necessary support that they need to move them closer to the labour market and to support them into work. We are basing all that we do around what works for them. Importantly, as applies to the other amendments, we are focused particularly on life chances.
I will, if I may, move on to the debate in the other place. I can report that, since we last met, the other place has chosen not to insist on its amendments 8 and 9, which removed the changes to the ESA WRAG and the UC LCW element. However, it has agreed what is in effect a wrecking amendment, because it could in practice prevent the provisions from coming into force, despite the fact that my noble Friend and colleague Lord Freud committed to several additional measures to help those affected by the change, which addressed a number of the specific requests raised in the Lords.
Let me set out the extra measures we have committed to in the other place. First, the additional measures include an additional £15 million in 2017-18, when the changes to the ESA WRAG and the UC LCW element come into force, to increase the local Jobcentre flexible support fund. The money, which will be set aside specifically for those with limited capability for work, represents a 22% increase in the overall fund.
Secondly, in response to the concerns that were raised about claimants with progressive conditions, we have committed to improving the awareness of the reassessment process and the guidance for claimants and disability charities about reassessments. We will provide additional support and training to jobcentre staff to ensure that they are aware that they may need to talk about requests for reassessments with claimants with deteriorating conditions.
Finally, we will improve the work incentives for those who continue to receive ESA even further by removing the 52-week limit that applies to permitted work for those in the ESA WRAG. That will allow claimants to gain skills and experience and to build their confidence, while still receiving the benefit over a longer period. We will support these individuals to get back into work.
As I said earlier, despite those additional measures, the other place proceeded with amendments that ignore the clear voice of this democratically elected House, which has supported the changes to the ESA WRAG and the UC LCW element, and the fact that we have voted on this measure five times. Although, on the face of it, the amendments may appear to be reasonable, let me set out how they are, in effect, potentially wrecking amendments.
Priti Patel
I will proceed, because we have very little time. The right hon. Gentleman will get the chance to speak once all the introductory speeches have been made.
First, the amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the changes prior to the changes being made, and not to introduce the reform until the report had been published. Specifically, the report would be about the impacts on a person’s health, finances and ability to return to work. In line with normal practice, we of course intend to evaluate this change.
My noble Friend Lord Freud has confirmed in the other place that we will monitor the impact through regular national statistics. However, it will be impossible to provide the majority of the information requested in the amendments through our analysis prior to implementation, because the data that are currently available do not allow us to make any meaningful estimate. That means that the amendments would delay the implementation of the measure by four years and cost more than £1 billion of the savings for which this democratically elected House has voted.
The amendments would not only impact on the savings associated with this change, but would hinder the Government in their commitment to do the right thing by providing the right incentives and supporting people with health conditions and disabilities to allow them to improve their life chances, fulfil their potential and get the vital support that they need to enable them to get back to work.
Secondly, the amendments are unacceptable because they seek to require that the commencement regulations be made under the affirmative resolution procedure. At best, that is a delaying tactic that runs contrary to usual parliamentary process. In practice, it would allow the Lords to block the legislation by the back door. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that the Lords has overstepped the mark on this.
This House voted convincingly for the changes on 23 February. That was the fifth time this House had voted overwhelmingly for this reform—a reform that is financially privileged and that is a key part of our efforts to reform the welfare system by supporting more people into work.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I apologise at the outset for the fact that I will not take interventions, but a lot of people want to make speeches and not everybody got in last week. Also, I am not sure that my voice will hold for very long.
I will speak to Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D on child poverty reporting and to Lords amendments 8B, 8C, 9B and 9C on the proposed cuts to the employment and support allowance work-related activity component and its equivalent in universal credit.
On Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D, I was going to welcome the Minister’s agreeing to publish the percentage of children living in poverty in the way originally described in the Child Poverty Act 2010, based on household income and material deprivation. However, I found the tone that she took in introducing the debate very regrettable. I also regret that the Government have not conceded to the request to submit an annual report to Parliament on the progress on these measures.
As I argued last week, we cannot deny the fact that in relation to child poverty, income matters. As experts in child poverty and child health have stressed in recent weeks and months, it is entirely regrettable that the Government are trying to conflate the consequences of child poverty, for example debt and family breakdown, with the cause—a lack of material resources. I have to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field): there is no evidence to support the Government’s proposed interventions. They are likely to have no effect on child poverty and they may even make things worse. Contrary to that, support such as income supplements has been shown to be highly effective.
The Government’s predilection for focusing on worklessness, when two thirds of children living in poverty are from working families, reveals exactly where they are coming from. It is about hammering the poor, whether they are in work or not. As I predicted last week, and as yesterday’s Institute for Fiscal Studies report shows, the net effect of tax and social security changes will increase the proportion of children in relative poverty by eight percentage points, and those in absolute poverty by three percentage points by 2020. That means that one in four—2.6 million—of our children will live in poverty. The implications for those children and their families, but also for the country, are stark.
Growing up in poverty limits children’s potential and development across a range of areas. Brain scans show how children’s brains develop differently when children are subjected to poverty. Poverty leads to poor health and life chances in adulthood, and that has knock-on effects for future generations. We already have the highest mortality of children under five in western Europe, and children from poor families are five times more likely to die than children from rich families. We all need to reflect on that; it should be a concern for us all.
Let me deal with amendments 8B, 8C, 9B and 9C. On Monday, the House of Lords voted overwhelmingly for Lord Low’s amendment calling for an assessment of the effects of the proposed measures to reduce social security support for people with disability, impairment or a serious health condition who had been found not fit for work and placed in the ESA WRAG group. In particular, the amendment called for an assessment of the impact on disabled people’s physical and mental health, their financial position—we know that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people, and 80% of that is due to their disability—and their ability to return to work.
To refresh people’s memory, the Government propose to cut financial support from £102.15 to £73.10—nearly £30 a week or £1,500 a year—for new ESA WRAG claimants from 2017. However, that will also apply to existing WRAG claimants. In April, nearly half a million people who are currently on ESA WRAG will start to migrate to universal credit, and the Government intend to remove the limited capability for work component of the work element of universal credit. That means that everyone currently on ESA WRAG will ultimately be transferred to UC and have their support reduced by that £29.05 a week or £1,500 a year.
Debbie Abrahams
If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I will not. I said that I would not give way, and I want to be fair and consistent.
As Baroness Grey-Thompson pointed out on Monday, the cuts will also affect disabled people in low paid work, who will receive less under universal credit. I acknowledge the Government’s concessions in the increase in support to the jobcentre flexible support fund of an extra £15 million in the coming year. However, the payments are flexible and discretionary. I also acknowledge the removal of the 52-week limit on permitted work in ESA and some protection for people with progressive conditions, but they are frankly inadequate.
On the health issues that people on ESA face, we know from the Government’s published data from last year that the death rates of people on incapacity benefit/ESA in 2013 was 4.3 times greater than those of the general population. That is an increase of 25% since 2003. People in the support group are 6.3 times more likely to die than the general population, and those in the WRAG group—the people whom we are saying that we will take this money from—are 2.2 times more likely to die than the general population.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate once again. I know that time is very short, so I will keep my remarks short and speak to Lords amendments 8B and 9B.
I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the movement she has made so far on the flexible support fund and scrapping the 52-week permitted work limit. That is very welcome and a good move in the right direction. Although I disagree with the Government on this issue and I voted against the Government last week, I am concerned that this ping-pong is evolving into petty politics that is constraining the issue we should be discussing, which is the reform of welfare on a very technical point.
The Lords amendments are based on the amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I tabled on Report. I would have welcomed that amendment coming back last week, as opposed to this week. We have spent a lot of time on this amendment. I will be voting against the Government tonight, but I feel we should be putting this behind us and moving forward to discuss the White Paper. I want the Minister to be aware that I will be publishing a Green Paper and inviting colleagues who are also concerned to contribute to it, so we can broaden the horizon out on what we would like in terms of welfare reform.
I want to reiterate the fact that the Conservative party considers it its proud duty to look after the disabled in our community. The Conservatives are very happy, ideologically, to provide a welfare state that helps those in need. When people fall on hard times, we will look after them. Nobody is trying to punish anybody in the Bill or in the amendments we are discussing. The reality is that my Conservative colleagues and I want to get to the same position as the Government, which is to help as many disabled people as possible who want to work to get back into work.
Stephen McPartland
I am not going to give way, simply because we are short of time.
In my view, the Work programme has failed. One out of 100 people are moving off it. That is our failure, not the failure of the people on the programme. We all want a fix. We want to get as many disabled people who want to work back into work. We just disagree on how we achieve that. I hope our Green Paper will help the Government to publish their White Paper. I genuinely think we would not have been in this position if the White Paper had been brought forward already and we were not having to take on faith something we are not really sure is going to happen, who the Ministers will be, who will be in charge of the money, and how we are going to move forward for these disabled people.
I want to reassure my constituents in the ESA WRAG that the changes apply only to new claimants from 1 April 2017. There has been a lot of confusion about that in my postbag and I want to reassure my constituents on that.
I will vote against the Government tonight, but I hope it will be for the last time on this particular issue.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). We use the word “honourable” in this House far too often, but in this case he has been very honourable in the way he has approached this particular subject.
In the brief time available to us this evening, I hope I can set out the clear reasons why the House must accept Lords amendments 8B, 8C, 9B and 9C tonight. Let me first say that I welcome the Government’s partial change of heart to place the reporting of income-related child poverty on a statutory footing. Amendments 1B, 1C and 1D are not perfect, but they at least represent some progress. I hope that Conservative Members will now see the merits of accepting other arguments made by the Opposition regarding ESA and the work component of universal credit.
Last week, I was invited to sit on the Reasons Committee after we voted and rejected the previous Lords amendments. For those unfamiliar with it, the Committee meets immediately after the vote and agrees the reason to be articulated to the Lords from the Government as to why their amendments were refused. On ESA and universal credit amendments, the reasons were exactly the same:
“Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons; and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.”
So the Commons did not offer “any further Reason”, which I found shocking. The Government could not come up with anything else to say—no empirical evidence, no logical argument, nothing socially responsible or of any consequence. It relied on a pseudo-constitutional technicality to explain the decision to remove £30 a week from the pockets of sick and disabled people on ESA WRAG. Ping-pong is being used and abused as an excuse in this regard. What message does that send from this Government to ESA recipients? It says, “We don’t need to justify why we are cutting your ESA, we just are. We just can and we just will. We trust that this reason may be deemed sufficient.”
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Neil Gray
I am sorry, but time is tight and other right hon. and hon. Members have refused to take interventions.
As I was saying, the Government said that they trusted their reason “be deemed sufficient”. There is, of course, nothing to say because this Government have not done their homework. The impact assessment has not been done. The Government have no idea how this will impact on claimants, their health or their ability to progress towards work. Tonight, the Government will not have that technicality to fall back on. The revised amendments from the Lords ask the Government to provide the impact assessment that should have been done right at the start of this process and for it to be scrutinised before any cut to ESA would be forthcoming.
This amendment from Lord Low and his colleagues sets a challenge to this Minister and her Government. It sets a challenge to accept the amendment or do a better job of reasoning why the amendment should be opposed. It does not cost the Government any extra money; it just asks for them to do the work they should have done before even bringing these proposals to the House.
Some Conservatives voted with the Government last week, holding their nose. They did so on the “jam tomorrow” promise dangled by the Government in the shape and form of the much vaunted White Paper on health and work. Surely Conservative Members must now be asking whether the cart is being put before the horse. Why not publish the White Paper and explain what is going to replace this damaging cut to the incomes of sick and disabled people? Such a radical cut to social security for sick and disabled recipients merits at least that.
We should also consider the various court cases being brought against this Government regarding their welfare cuts—the bedroom tax, and carer’s allowance as part of the benefit cap. And the UN is investigating the cuts in general. By not doing their homework on cuts to ESA and universal credit and by not producing an impact assessment, the Government risk being dragged to court at great expense to the taxpayer once again and at great embarrassment to themselves once again.
I would rather have seen passed the amendments we tabled at the end of last year or those we considered last week. The Government won the votes on those occasions, but this is back before us tonight from the House of Lords. Universal opposition from disability groups and third sector organisations remains, while the fact that so many compassionate Conservative Members are thinking of voting against the Government tonight shows they have not won the argument. They have not convinced us that these cuts should happen before an impact assessment has been scrutinised, and they have not convinced us that these cuts should happen before the alternative in their White Paper has even been presented.
Given the apparent importance of this issue to the Government, the fact that the amendments are tabled in the name of the Secretary of State and that so many Conservatives are so close to voting against him, one would have thought that we would see the Secretary of State in his place this evening—if not at the Dispatch Box, at least somewhere on the Government Benches to show that he is not taking his Back Benchers for granted. He failed to attend the debate last week, and he has failed to appear again tonight. He has shown disrespect to the House, disrespect to his Conservative colleagues, and a blatant disregard for ESA and universal credit recipients whose support is due to be cut. As we heard from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), he has apparently already written to his Back Benchers in a last-ditch attempt to shore up support, saying that the impact assessments satisfy the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That is simply not true: the commission says that they do not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. There are 18 minutes left before the debate must end. I trust that no Member will speak for more than two minutes, as a courtesy to other Members.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Playing ping-pong with the other place, or receiving a Lords message, sounds rather genteel and polite, doesn’t it? However, I ask all Members almost to divorce their thinking from the issue on which we shall be voting later. Dare I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and indeed to the shadow Minister, that virtually everything they said was an irrelevance? The House has already debated the point, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister noted, we have voted on it on five occasions and have voted in the affirmative. We are now concerned with a much bigger issue, which should, in my judgment, unite all quarters of the House: the issue of the supremacy of this place as the elected House of Commons. As we know, in the last century the House had exactly the same debate on the people’s Budget.
The Minister was right. The Lords amendments are wrecking amendments, and the unelectable seem to be relying on the unelected to try to frustrate the policies and the position of Her Majesty’s Government, which was well articulated during the general election campaign and has been debated incredibly thoroughly in the House and elsewhere. Last night the House of Lords played a very dangerous game. It said to the democratically accountable House of Parliament in this country, “We know better than you, the electorate; we know better than you, the elected Government.” We are on the cusp—issue apart—of a constitutional conundrum which will not end easily for the upper House. The authority of this place is now under significant and serious challenge. It is time for parties to unite, and for us to exercise and exert our supremacy in a democratic Parliament.
Stephen Timms
I think that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) must be rather inexperienced in the procedures of Parliament, because ping-pong is a well-established feature of our proceedings.
I welcome the change of heart on the publication of child poverty indicators, but I am very disappointed by the position that the Minister has taken on the Lords amendments on the employment and support allowance. It is a shame that the Secretary of State is not here tonight. As we have heard, he has written to Back-Bench Conservative Members to tell them that it is “impossible to provide” the information that is required. However, that is not what the Equality and Human Rights Commission says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out in her excellent speech. A letter from the commission’s chief executive dated 16 September last year made this point:
“Assessments need to include sufficient detail and analysis to demonstrate that the draft proposals have been adequately considered for their potential impact on equality. We have considerable expertise in this area”.
However, the Secretary of State rejected its offer of help and now says that it is impossible to provide the information. It is perfectly possible to provide that information, but Ministers do not wish to provide it because the House would then be able to see what the effects would be.
An attempt has been made to present these changes as in the interests of disabled people, but they are not supported by a single one of the organisations representing disabled people. Parkinson’s UK has made its position very clear:
“The policy is likely to have a significant, harmful impact on the health and wellbeing of people with Parkinson’s.”
Macmillan Cancer Support states:
“Macmillan strongly opposes the proposed reductions because of the negative impact they will have on people affected by cancer and other long-term conditions.”
The judgment that the House has to make tonight is whether Ministers are speaking for disabled people or whether the organisations representing disabled people are speaking for them. I hope that the House will choose in favour of the latter.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
This is a very important debate. It is important to note that these changes relating to the provision of the employment and support allowance work-related activity component will have no impact on existing claimants. They will apply only to new claimants and to claims made after April next year.
Additionally, the Government have said that they will publish a White Paper this spring detailing how they plan to improve support for people with health conditions and disabilities. I look forward to seeing what is in that White Paper, particularly on the role of employers in reducing the disability employment gap. I carried out my fifth jobs and apprenticeships fair in my constituency recently, and the 40 employers I spoke to all agreed that they would commit to a Disability Confident-aware fair, which is what I will hold this year. I am going to play my part, and everybody in this House has a role to play in helping people who wish to get into work.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence that work is generally good for physical and mental wellbeing, and 61% of those in work-related activity groups say that they want to work. The existing policy set up by Labour in 2008 is failing those claimants. Despite £2.7 billion being spent this year supporting those in the ESA work-related activity group, just 1% of the WRAG claimants moved off ESA each month. The policy is clearly not working, and we need a better system than this.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I urge the Government to remember that, by their own definition, claimants receiving work-related ESA are not capable of work at that time. They are people the Government’s own work capability assessment has deemed not to be fit for work. Surely it is therefore preposterous that the Government think they can cure those people’s complex and long-term ailments and miraculously incentivise them to return to work by reducing their financial support.
If implemented, these cuts will surely also hinder the Government’s ambition to halve the disability employment gap. Instead, they will push many disabled people further into poverty and have a significant and harmful impact on the health and wellbeing of many people, including many in my constituency. As has been mentioned, a Macmillan survey of nearly 1,000 people living with cancer recently found that one in 10 would be unable, or would struggle, to pay their rent or mortgage if they lost £30 a week. How can this Government think it is acceptable to risk cancer patients losing their homes as a result of these cuts? Surely, as has been said by many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who spoke articulately and with such passion and principle, it is time to listen to Macmillan, Scope, Sense and Parkinson’s UK, to the many experts who have lined up and to the recommendations of the parliamentary review of the proposed cuts and reverse the removal of the work-related ESA component—and the equivalent payment under universal credit—as proposed by these amendments. It is also surely time for a thorough impact assessment of the proposed changes before they come into effect.
Finally, instead of cutting these life-saving benefits, the Government should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has so clearly articulated, put in place much more effective back-to-work support and provide more disability employment advisers to help these people deal properly with the barriers they face. We should not be punishing some of the most vulnerable people in our country—we should be giving them a helping hand.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
When I spoke on this matter in this House a week ago, I referred to the issue of the publication of data and the Lords amendments then before us. I recall saying, in answer to an intervention from an Opposition Member, that I felt sure the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) would be giving an assurance that the Government would be guaranteeing that the sort of data that the Labour party was asking for would be guaranteed and would be published annually. Lo and behold, that is what has happened. She has been absolutely correct in making that concession to the Lords, and the resulting Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D are to be welcomed. I hope we can all support them this evening.
On the other Lords amendments, 8B, 8C, 9B and 9C, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has articulated the parliamentary process. I will not go through any more of those arguments, but it is clearly the fact that this House—the democratically elected House—has quite properly voted on these matters on many occasions. I served on the Bill Committee, along with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for many occasions last autumn, and all these issues have been discussed in full and passed by this House.
Rather than the process, what is important to remember is this: everybody, on both sides of this House, wants to do the right thing. This Government have at the heart of their policy the fact that we will ensure that those with long-term illnesses or physical or mental disabilities will get all the help that they need to move closer to work. Of course that is the right approach, and it is the essence of the Government’s policy.
While on the issue, I should say that I am holding a Disability Confident event this Friday in my constituency, with the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and that shows that with a rounded package of measures, this Government are absolutely committed to helping those who need the most support to get closer to work. It is time to get these measures on the statute book.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The proposal to cut the incomes of people on ESA WRAG by £1,500 is one of the most mean-spirited yet from this Government. The fact that the cut applies only to new claimants, in a little over a year’s time, demonstrates the unease Ministers have about it and their hope—a vain one—that because it applies only to new claimants, somehow people will not notice. The fact is that Ministers are looking for large savings at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable. That was not made clear in the general election campaign; then, the Prime Minister said that disabled people would be protected.
The Minister said that she was going to spend another £100 million on supporting these people. If her scheme was going to work, she would not need to cut this £30 from such people’s weekly income, because she would get the savings as they all moved into work. This is doomed to fail and the Minister knows it. If she was convinced that it was going to work, she would do the impact assessment, because she would be confident of the upshot. She is not doing so, and she is ignoring the very real impact that this will have on the health of the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am in complete support of my right hon. Friend the Minister and entirely in disagreement with the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who is a very civilised gentleman. When he said that this was a pseudo-constitutional issue, he could not have been more wrong. This House’s democratic authority is wholly based on financial privilege, which is why, when we reject amendments that engage financial privilege, we give no further reason. Not only is that important to the current Government, but it will be important to the Opposition when they are in government, too. If the House of Lords can challenge the Commons on matters of financial privilege, then the country becomes ungovernable. Those who have the democratic mandate have a right, because of the people whom they represent, to determine issues relating to finance. The other place is increasingly trespassing on that right. The amendment that it passed in lieu decided to give it the right to consider the secondary legislation on a financial matter, which it does not need to do; it has taken it from primary to secondary, upgrading their role on a financial matter. Constitutionally, that is quite wrong. Any Member of this House who thinks that, one day, he may speak from the Treasury Bench Dispatch Box should bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the constitutional norms are maintained.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
There are plenty of cameras in this place, but they do not always pick up what is going on across the Chamber. When my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) was speaking, the Minister was engaged in conversation with a person to her immediate left. I am not sure whether that conversation was related to the debate in hand, but they thought it fit to laugh during the debate when the true impact of these cuts on the people who can least afford them was being laid out. Either the Minister was not paying attention to the debate because of disinterest, or she thought that what was being laid out was funny. Either way, she should be ashamed of herself.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The first thing that I did when I was elected to this place in 2010 was to attend a dinner in honour of Alf Morris, the first disabled Minister, to celebrate the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. At that dinner, I sat between Roger Berry, the former MP for Kingswood, and the late Paul Goggins, the former MP for Wythenshawe. Both were excellent Labour disability Ministers, who did a superb job. Also there was William Hague, who brought in the disability living allowance. What that brought home to me was that the only time that real progress is made on disability issues is when there is a spirit of bipartisanship in this Chamber. On this particular issue, that bipartisanship is clearly lacking.
For the past six years—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) please be quiet? Her behaviour now reminds me why I chose not to vote for her for the Public Accounts Committee. She is showing me no courtesy at all.
For six years now, I have believed that we need to improve our support for those with a disability. There is a crying need for reform. We now have a White Paper. I want us all to engage in the process, not just to sit there. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that promised to halve the disability employment gap. Nothing would upset me more than to think that Opposition Members actively want us to fail in that goal, because they see some sort of short-term political gain. They owe it to their constituents and to the country to help us achieve our goal, and I do not think that some of them want to do that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The cuts to employment and support allowance—
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just heard a Government Member pray in aid my right hon. Friend Paul Goggins, who is dead, and try to include him on the Government’s side of the argument. It is terribly wrong to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. I call Mr Barry Gardiner.
Barry Gardiner
The cuts to employment and support allowance will make the lives of disabled people harder, the lives of those with mental, cognitive and behavioural difficulties harder, and the lives of those with progressive or fluctuating conditions harder. There are 9,290 people in receipt of employment and support allowance in my borough, Brent. In 2012 one of my constituents was placed in the WRAG group, fit to work—
Estimates 2015-16
19:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 55 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 13 to 18 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Constitutional Law
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2015, be approved.
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.
Police
That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2015, be approved.
Patents
That the draft Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
Health Care and Associated Professions
That the draft Pharmacy (Premises Standards, Information Obligations, etc.) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.
Electricity
That the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
Question agreed to.
Dog Theft: Sentencing
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this debate, and as a dog owner I was minded to do so for a couple of reasons—first, the inadequate sentencing guidelines for this type of offence, and, secondly, the sheer nastiness of this offence and the fact that it needs clamping down on far more than currently happens.
I do not criticise this or any previous Government, but it is necessary to appreciate the devastating impact that the theft of a dog has on its owner. That emotional impact overrides the financial loss, but too often our court systems are geared up to deal with such thefts simply as a form of property crime. The theft of a dog is a particularly nasty offence. Sometimes dogs are targeted because of their monetary value, but often it is done to allow grief stricken owners to put up reward posters in the area, with those rewards then claimed by the actual perpetrator.
Before coming to this House I spent nearly 20 years working in the criminal justice system so I have some appreciation of the difficulties and complexities that the courts are labouring under. I am also aware that organisations such as the Sentencing Council endeavour to provide user friendly, concise guidelines for a multitude of different situations, but I feel that it needs to reflect on its guidelines for offences of theft, as there is little to ensure that those who steal dogs get an appropriate sentence.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. There was a debate in Westminster Hall a few months ago, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) on dog theft, cat killing and cruelty to pets and one point that arose then is that the law equates the loss of a pet to the loss of property, which is wrong. The law takes no account at all of the wider emotional impact of the theft, or of the societal needs for proper punishment in such cases.
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and he is right when he says that there is a failure to acknowledge the emotional impact of such thefts—that is one reason why I secured this debate. Because of the failure of the system, few statistics are kept, and stolen dogs are often deemed to have run away as there is little proof they have been stolen. There is also no separate category of the theft of a dog, and such thefts tend to be lumped together with all the other chattels that get stolen. It is believed by Blue Cross that roughly three dogs are stolen each day. Three cats are also stolen each day, and my hon. Friend was right to mention that because the same principles apply. Almost half those thefts are from people’s gardens, one in five is from burglaries, one in seven is from owners walking their dogs, and most of the other thefts take place when people leave their dogs tied up outside shops.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Dogs have been domesticated for millennia, they have been man’s best friend for centuries, and today they remain an integral part of many families and are loved as much as any member. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that introducing a new category would reflect the fact that, although dogs are animals, for many people up and down this nation their dog is as much a part of the family as any other member?
Gareth Johnson
As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the failure of the current system. I argue that we can deal with that by amending the sentencing guidelines. It does not necessarily need a change in the law; it needs a change in the approach to sentencing, which is completely inadequate at the moment.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To reinforce the point just made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too often people are sentenced as if they have nicked a garden gnome, TV or video that can easily be replaced by buying another one. The theft of a dog is stealing part of the family, and the sentence should reflect the impact that that theft has, which goes far beyond the impact of stealing a TV.
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this debate generates a fair amount of passion because of the pain that such thefts impose on people who go through the loss of a quasi-member of their own family.
Julian Knight
My hon. Friend mentions how pets are stolen in burglaries. Perhaps the courts could consider an offence of aggravated burglary in relation to crimes involving pets.
Gareth Johnson
That is a very interesting point. There should certainly be an aggravating feature of the offence of theft. Unfortunately, that is not the case according to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines. That is what is missing. Dogs are stolen in burglaries for a multitude of reasons: for fighting, for ransoms, for breeding or for selling on.
This crime is increasing and the emotional impact it has on both the owner and the dogs is immeasurable. Anyone who has had a dog stolen from them is able to say how painful an experience it is for both the owner and the animal, yet I fear penalties will now be reduced rather than increased. This is due to the flawed sentencing guidelines introduced just last month. Under the guidelines, theft sentencing is split into three categories—high, medium and lesser culpability. These are defined by specific characteristics. However, none of those characteristics includes anything that would normally apply for the theft of a dog. This forms the very starting point for sentencing. The guidelines then go on to look at the harm caused, which does cover emotional distress to the victim but is assessed primarily by the financial loss to the victim. That cannot be the right approach.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for coming late to the debate. I was caught out by the previous Division. The hon. Gentleman mentions the emotional impact of the theft of a dog. That is so important. For those of us who love dogs and have owned them all their lives, we know how terrible it is when we have to say goodbye to them. It is terrible to lose a dog in circumstances where we do not know what has happened, whether stolen by a criminal gang to be used for fighting or whatever. Does he agree that the emotional impact should be reflected in sentences for people who steal dogs?
Gareth Johnson
I certainly do. I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says. It is one of those offences where the emotional loss is not catered for in the guidelines. It does not just relate to dog theft and other animals but to personal items. The emotional impact of the theft of family photographs belonging to family members who have passed away is not properly taken into account when the courts are sentencing offenders either.
Courts cannot place dog thefts in the top half of offending categories unless the dog has a high monetary value, and that is not always the case. It means there is a greater chance of prison for the theft of a pedigree than there is for the theft of a mongrel. This approach completely fails to understand the nature of dog theft. The impact an offence like this has on a victim is not even mentioned in the list of aggravating factors that the court should take into account. Dog theft is now seen as an easy way of making money with little chance of a prison sentence imposed on the offender. In fact, under the current guidelines it is very difficult for a court to imprison someone for the theft of a dog that is worth less in monetary terms than £500. It is no wonder, then, that these offences are on the increase.
I fully accept that the Sentencing Council cannot cater for every type of theft and that it has an extremely difficult job, but there needs to be a greater appreciation of the emotional impact an offence can have on an individual.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I applaud my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I am a dog owner and have been a magistrate for some 10 years. I have never actually seen a dog theft in my years as a magistrate, which is to the good, but I can very much imagine the anguish it would cause. From memory, the sentencing band for a low level theft would be probably from a conditional discharge to a fine, and perhaps in extremis a low level community order. I am sure it would be far more beneficial for the victim impact statement to have a far greater bearing, and the ability to go to a small custodial sentence may be the way forward in such cases.
Gareth Johnson
I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I am not surprised that he has not seen one of these cases because of the difficulty of bringing them to court. The problem brings us back to the over-reliance on the monetary value of the item stolen. If I were to sell my scruffy mutt, I would be lucky to get a fiver for it, quite frankly—but that rather misses the point. I would sooner have my mobile phone or even my car stolen than my dog. It is not a chattel and should not be treated as such. A distinction should be made when it comes to sentencing.
I have seen posters in my local area and my constituency seeking lost dogs, and they often say something like “reward—no questions asked”. This problem is thus going on under the radar of the authorities, which is why we do not see as many cases going to court as we should. The deterrent factor that a prison sentence would offer is often missing, yet this is an offence that causes misery for thousands of people around our country.
The message to people who are thinking of buying a dog is that they should do so only from a reputable source. There are some excellent organisations helping to tackle this problem: Blue Cross, Dog Theft Action and Dog Lost, which commended much of the work carried out on this by my local Kent police force and a few other forces as well. Yet if the criminal justice system allows those who commit these offences to walk away with light penalties, this problem will only grow and grow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on his habitual tenacity, which enabled him to secure this very important debate. The truth is that many people become very attached to their pets and treat them like family—sometimes better than family. I know at first hand that the distress caused when a pet disappears is heightened if it is suspected or found that the pet has been stolen for nefarious purposes of one sort or another. That can only aggravate the fear that the pet may come to some form of harm. As I say, I know this at first hand, because I grew up with dogs. I had a dog that I loved very dearly, so I know the worry when dogs go missing. In my case, the dog was a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Anyone who knows the breed will realise that it is unlikely to be stolen. None the less, we fretted every time he jumped the gate or the back garden. I know what the feeling is like.
Sadly, the truth is that we are seeing a growing trend of disappearances and thefts of pets, with all the distress that can cause to individual owners. We in government have to make sure that the criminal justice system is able to respond to these incidents, that we have the resources and expertise to investigate the cases, that there is the will to prosecute them, and that the courts—this is the key to my hon. Friend’s debate—have the necessary criminal and sentencing powers to ensure that we punish offenders and, let us not forget, deter offending.
I hold ministerial responsibility for sentencing, so I need to be assured that courts have the right framework and the right powers in place. I would like to talk a little about deterrence, if only because it is not necessarily always talked about, yet it is an important part of the matter, preventing offences from happening in the first place. I will return to that in a moment, if I may.
Let me say a few words about the available offences and the sentences connected with them. First, we have offences of animal cruelty and failure to meet an animal’s basic needs. These are set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those offences carry a maximum of six months imprisonment or a fine, or both. The courts also have the power to ban an offender from keeping animals in the future. It is not always the case that a stolen pet has been mistreated, but where it has been, this offence may apply.
Where the offence charged is theft, under the Theft Act 1968, the maximum penalty is seven years. That applies to domestic animals, just as it does to any other goods or chattels. My hon. Friend has made the point that animals should not be treated just like some kind of inanimate object or chattel, and I think he is absolutely right. When it comes to the criminal law, we have to think carefully about how those concerns should be properly reflected.
Of course, justice must be more than the dry letter of the law. The courts will always take into account the circumstances of a case, but that does not necessarily mean that they will need definitions of separate and bespoke offences relating to every possible variation of the crime of theft or every possible contingency. I am slightly worried—I suppose I say this as a Minister, but also as a Conservative—about the creation of specific penalties for behaviour that is already covered; I am not sure that that achieves very much. We need to enforce the penalties that already exist. Creating new offences applying to every conceivable situation risks complicating the law, and making it less transparent and less accessible. I do not think that that is what my hon. Friend was calling for, but I think that the point is worth making. The rule of law requires clear, consistent, predictable rules for victims and for citizens in general, and the sending of a clear message of deterrence to offenders.
It is for the courts to decide the right sentence in individual cases, within the maximum set by Parliament. The courts hear all the circumstances of a case, and are best placed to make that decision. They are helped by the sentencing guidelines that are issued by the independent—I stress the word “independent”—Sentencing Council. They must follow those guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. Even then, there is some wriggle room. The guidelines are there to ensure that sentencing is more consistent, and to identify sentencing ranges and aggravating and mitigating factors. There must be a balance between ensuring that rules are fair and consistent, and doing justice to the particular facts of a case and, in the case of a dog theft, the impact on the dog’s owner.
The new sentencing guideline on theft came into force at the beginning of last month. I understand that my hon. Friend may be disappointed that it does not specifically mention pet theft. If he has not done so already, he may wish to check out the Sentencing Council’s website, where he will see that the council’s consultation on the draft of the new guideline elicited responses and suggestions relating to this specific issue, including the suggestion that there should be a separate guideline on pet theft.
The council’s response to the consultation is available on the website. Having carefully considered the views of respondents, it concluded that the aggravating factors already in the guideline would enable the courts to sentence appropriately for pet theft. Aggravating factors in the guideline include emotional distress caused to the victim, and the fact that the stolen item may be of particular subjective value to the owner regardless of its strict monetary worth. I think that that was one of my hon. Friend’s key points. Judges are human beings, and many have a strong sense of empathy. Moreover, they have all the powers, and, most important, the discretion, to take account of the full range of impacts on individuals of this very serious offence, including the emotional impact on owners and, indeed, dogs.
The guideline mentions the following aggravating factors: the offender is acting as part of a group or gang, so that there is an organised crime element; there is significant planning of the offence; or the goods are stolen to order. Unfortunately, all those factors are often present when a dog has been stolen. The courts have adequate criminal powers, and I believe that they have adequate sentencing powers at their disposal, as well as recent and substantial guidance to help them to reach balanced, proportionate and consistent sentencing decisions, all the while taking account of all the facts of the case. It is precisely because we want them to take account of the individual impact in an individual case that we must allow judges to retain that measure of discretion.
Let me say a little about deterrence. The sentences passed by the courts are partly aimed at deterring other prospective offenders, but people can, of course, take action themselves to prevent their dogs from being stolen. Improvements in technology are one of the major reasons why we have managed to reduce the incidence of crime in recent years. Microchipping of dogs has been available for more than 25 years, and I am told that about 83% of dogs are now voluntarily chipped by their owners. My hon. Friend was, of course, one of the tenacious campaigners for the compulsory microchipping of dogs, and I congratulate him on his efforts. He, like me, will have been pleased to learn that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to introduce compulsory microchipping in England on 6 April this year. Similar arrangements will also be in place in Scotland and Wales.
This measure is to be welcomed because it is an important step for animal welfare more broadly. It will make it easier to identify dogs and reunite them with their owners. It will also make it easier to prove that a dog has been stolen, which is important for prosecutions, and I know that my hon. Friend wants to see more of those. Most importantly, however, it can act as a deterrent. A prospective criminal who knows that a dog is microchipped is significantly less likely to target that animal for theft. The fact that all dogs must now be microchipped is as important a factor in reducing these distressing offences as the effective and flexible sentencing response, which I believe is already available.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate. He has been tenacious in raising this important matter, and we will always keep these issues under review, but I believe that on balance we now have the right powers, criminal offences and sentencing discretion in place to deal with this very serious crime.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bailey—for the first time, I believe. Allow me to go through the background and the purpose of the order, which I will do in a little detail, if I may beg your forbearance.
In the previous Parliament, the coalition Government took the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 through the House. That was a very important Bill that provided the necessary legislative framework to implement Lord Hutton’s recommendations following his independent review of public service pensions.
Lord Hutton’s report set out recommendations for public service employees to continue to have access to good quality, sustainable and fairer defined benefit pension schemes. One of his key recommendations was that the Government should replace the existing final salary pension schemes with a new career-average scheme and then, when everything was ready, move existing members to the new scheme for future accruals.
The Government accepted Lord Hutton’s recommendations as a basis for discussion with trade unions and employers. Following those discussions, the Government entered into proposed final agreements with the unions, all of which required the introduction of new career-average pension schemes. With the exception of the new career-average section of the local government pension scheme, which had been introduced a year earlier—an important detail I will come to—those new schemes were introduced in April 2015, with most members moving from the final salary schemes to the career-average schemes.
Although I am sure members of the Committee are well aware of the differences between final salary and career average, I will briefly explain them for the record. Under a final salary scheme, a member is paid a pension that reflects their salary towards the end of their career and their length of service. Under the new career-average schemes, a member of the scheme is paid a pension that reflects their earnings over their whole career.
Each year, members earn a pension amount calculated as a proportion of their salary. The rate at which that builds up annually is driven by the accrual rate. The better the accrual rate, the higher the proportion of their salary that builds up each month. Those new pension amounts are added to those built up in earlier years and all are then revalued to ensure that the total of those pension pots maintains a value relative to a particular metric.
The particular rate of revaluation in each scheme is carried out in line with the revaluation metric set out in the scheme design and delivered in scheme regulations. Those metrics were finalised in the published agreements, reached following discussion between schemes and the relevant trade unions. It is the metric of prices revaluation that we are here to discuss today.
Some schemes have regulations that require the accrued pension pots to be revalued in line with earnings, such as the schemes for the armed forces and firefighters. With the rest, their regulations requires them to be revalued in line with prices, or prices plus some percentage.
It is worth setting out some of the background to explain why there are such differences. The Government’s starting offer for the scheme design, called the reference scheme, was an accrual rate of one sixtieth, with earnings revaluation. The uniformed services received better starting accrual rates, to reflect the younger normal pension age of their schemes.
The Government agreed, with the TUC, to enter into scheme-specific discussions with the unions representing the respective workforces, to ensure that the final designs reflected the unique nature of those workforces. However, to maintain control of costs and to protect taxpayers, the Treasury set out a cost ceiling process, whereby a scheme improvement in one area of design would result in a compensatory reduction in value of another area of scheme design; in other words, they are all designed to balance out the different considerations to arrive at something that would be within the cost ceiling.
Almost all schemes, with the exception of those for the armed forces and for firefighters, agreed to move away from the Government’s preferred revaluation metric of earnings and towards a prices metric. Some schemes went for plain prices, others went for prices plus a constant—prices plus x%. At that time, the Government’s preferred prices metric—this is what we are debating—for welfare and public service pensions uprating was the September consumer prices index, as it is today. In exchange for a lower value revaluation metric linked to prices, those schemes gained a faster, or better, accrual rate. This means that schemes, in discussion with the unions, agreed to have less annual uprating of pension pots in exchange for earning more pension each year. I will come back to the practical impacts of this shortly.
For the avoidance of doubt, pensions that are in payment and that are not subject to the revaluation orders we are debating today will continue to be indexed in line with the September CPI figure, although that will mean that those pensions in payment will be frozen this year. What is the purpose of today’s debate? The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires the Treasury to choose prices and earnings figures on an annual basis. On 2 February the Government announced that those public service schemes that rely on the measure of prices will continue to use September’s consumer prices index as the measure of prices revaluation. This means that a figure of minus 0.1% is to be used for the prices element of revaluation. At the same time the Government announced that the earnings measure would be the annual change in whole-economy average weekly earnings, non-seasonally adjusted and including bonuses and arrears, up to September 2015. This means that a figure of 2.0% is to be used for the earnings element of revaluation.
Where a negative figure is to be used for revaluation, as is the case here, the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires the order to be subject to the affirmative regulation procedure. As the prices order is negative, it is therefore the purpose of today’s debate to agree this draft order so that it can come into effect from 1 April 2016. In many ways, I view this debate as being about not whether the prices figure should be negative or positive, and whether that change is minus 0.1% or, indeed, some positive figure, but whether the Government have chosen the right prices metric for revaluation.
As I said, the metric we have chosen is the September consumer prices index. September CPI, as we all know, is the Government’s preferred measure of prices and is used for the indexation of public service pensions in payment, for the uprating of benefits and for the additional state pension. The September CPI figure was the measure used to revalue the career-average local government pension scheme last year when it was introduced a year earlier than the other schemes, setting an important precedent. Members may ask whether we could have chosen another measure, because CPI in September was negative this past year. It is true that we could have chosen another month’s CPI figure. We could, for instance, have chosen June’s or August’s CPI, which would have meant that the revaluation figure was 0%. However, that would create significant uncertainty for members, for schemes and for taxpayers. I will explain this in a bit more detail.
I shall talk first about creating certainty for members. Choosing September’s annual CPI figure is in line with the provisions that were agreed on behalf of members by their unions. It provides certainty for members by continuing to choose the Government’s preferred measure of prices, rather than picking and choosing a different month based on the view of the Government of the day. Although I cannot commit future Governments to a decision, our decision sets a clear precedent that September CPI will be the figure used for prices revaluation, whether that figure is high, low or negative.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Would it be right to come to the conclusion that the people who are adversely affected by what is being proposed are low paid and, therefore, on very small incomes?
Greg Hands
That is not uniformly the case. I will go on to explain the three schemes that are affected: the local government pension scheme, many of whose members have been high earners in their careers; the civil service pension scheme; and the judiciary pension scheme. Although there are low-paid workers in some of those schemes, I do not accept that they are uniformly lower-paid workers; indeed, there will be some fairly high-paid workers in those schemes.
Returning to my point, scheme members want to be treated fairly and consistently, and the order we are debating today delivers that. There should also be certainty for schemes themselves. Not choosing September’s CPI figure would create uncertainty for schemes. If a consistent measure of CPI was not used, schemes would find it difficult to determine what the correct measure of prices revaluation should be, both when assessing the cost of the scheme and when setting employer contribution rates.
It would not be unusual for a scheme actuary to place an uncertainty figure in the valuation if we decided not to use the standard September figure, particularly if it was considered that there was doubt about whether a consistent prices metric would be used. That would have the potential to put upward pressure on employer contribution rates, and affect the amount of money that employers have available to employ staff.
Furthermore, choosing a correct and stable measure of prices ensures fairness across schemes. That is a crucial detail. It would be unfair for those schemes that chose faster revaluation, instead of a better revaluation rate, to benefit from both fast accrual and a more generous revaluation metric than the one that they decided upon. That goes back to my point about the balance in each of the schemes that was arrived at after consultation and negotiations with the relevant trade unions.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are tempted to suggest that we should give flexibility to the Government so that we can have a more generous position in this year should bear in mind that overall it would be unwise to trust Government to choose between various measures? Ultimately, we would expect their choice to be at the expense of the people, rather than that of the Treasury. Therefore, I applaud him for suggesting that we have total consistency and accept that consistency will apply even if the September figure goes peculiarly upward in future.
Greg Hands
Although I cannot go down the same road as my hon. Friend does about trusting the Government, I can say that his point about consistency is right. If there is any sense that the Government were able to move around between different months, according to political whim or motivation, that would introduce a huge amount of uncertainty into the schemes and open up the Government to lobbying. It would also probably open up all of us to being lobbied to choose one month or another. That might end up coming at the cost of the general taxpayer as well as creating instability in the scheme. Consistency is extremely important.
That leads me to the third area: certainty for taxpayers. To depart from what was agreed would also be unfair on the taxpayer. It is possible to argue that revaluing by 0% does not cost much, and that would be right. It would not cost that much, for now. But what about the future? If in the far future there were to be significant deflation, the cost of not revaluing negatively could be far greater. It is unfair in principle that members should be able to benefit only from the upside of inflation, while being shielded from the downside.
To illustrate my argument, I can share with Members a quote from page 72 of the report from the independent review of public service pensions undertaken by Lord Hutton:
“If there is no mechanism for reducing pensions in payment to maintain their real value then there is asymmetric sharing of risk between members and government, since government bears the risk of high inflation and members benefit from periods of deflation”.
Furthermore, many other taxpayers are in defined contribution schemes. The value of defined contribution schemes, of course, goes up and down based on the prevailing economic circumstances at that time and the valuation of bonds, stocks and whatever else might be put into that scheme. Members of the public who are not lucky enough to be in one of the highly valuable public service pension schemes for our highly valued public sector workers, but who face uncertainty from their own defined contribution schemes, should not be expected to subsidise public servants in this way from a potential negative revaluation drawn on by deflation. the arguments for continuing to use existing Government policy on the preferred measure of inflation for this order are clear and compelling.
I want to move on briefly to the effect the measure has on particular workers, perhaps answering some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Walsall North. The only schemes which will actually be negatively revalued directly under the terms of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 are those for the civil service, local government and the judiciary. However, you will be interested to know, Mr Bailey, that as the ministerial pension scheme relies on the provisions of this revaluation order, a Minister’s career average pension pot will also be negatively revalued. I am not looking for sympathy for myself and the Treasury Whip, but it is worth pointing out that there are knock-on effects beyond this immediate order.
I now return to the main question about the three pension schemes. To give a worked-out example, a local government worker who earns £21,000 a year will earn around £530 of pension this year. That pension pot will be revalued by minus 0.1%, which means a reduction in the nominal value of that pension pot of less than 50p. Even with a comparable pension pot from the previous year—remember that the local government pension scheme was introduced a year early—the total reduction would be less than £1. A civil servant earning £26,000 a year will earn around £600 of pension this year. That pension pot will be revalued by minus 0.1%, which means a reduction in the pension pot of around 60p. So this is not an attack on public sector pensions or on lower paid public sector workers, nor should it be portrayed as one.
In conclusion, the Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016 is an important aspect of the move towards more sustainable and fairer pension schemes for public service workers and for taxpayers. As Lord Hutton has said, these recommendations provide a balanced deal. It will ensure that public service workers continue to have good pensions and that taxpayers can have confidence that the costs are controlled. Revaluing in line with scheme agreements that have already been made is an important part of the deal and I look forward to the debate.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, Mr Bailey, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Chief Secretary for his opening words outlining the background and the reasons we are here today. The new public servants’ pension schemes introduced from April 2015, in the most part, under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, provide for pension benefits based on career average revalued earnings, rather than final salary, following Lord Hutton’s report and the negotiations thereafter. A feature of CARE schemes is that an individual builds up benefits in each year of service based on a proportion of earnings and that the earning factor is revalued each year until retirement. The Minister is right that different accrual and revaluation rates were agreed as part of the negotiations for the different schemes. In the schemes for civil servants, local government and the judiciary, the earnings factor is revalued by prices. Similar is true for NHS, teachers’ and police pensions, but they feature a small uplift percentage, in line with the agreement reached, and variations in the annual accrual rate. For firefighters and the armed forces, he is right that the revaluation rate uses average earnings.
Turning to the most affected schemes, the local government pension scheme had 1.8 million active members in England and Wales in October 2015. At the end of March 2015, the UK-wide civil service pension scheme had 493,000 active scheme members. Section 9 of the 2013 Act provided for the Treasury to make orders that specify the percentage change in prices or earnings for the purposes of revaluation by reference to the general level of prices or earnings estimated in such a manner as the Treasury considers appropriate. Today’s draft order fulfils that requirement in relation to the period 1 April 2015 to end of March this year. The figure specified is indeed a decrease at minus 0.1% and this order is subject to the affirmative procedure because the value is negative.
When the 2013 Act went through Parliament, the former Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun raised the concerns of trade unions and others that negative growth would allow for negative revaluations. The then Treasury Minister, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said:
“It is important to note that the clause theoretically allows for negative revaluations. It is extremely rare for negative growth to occur. For example, CPI, the Government’s preferred measure of prices, has never been negative.”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 308.]
The concession made was that any such order would be subject to the affirmative procedure and that Parliament would have an opportunity to debate the measure, yet such an order has been brought before the House in the first year of the scheme. Not only has it come before the House, but it comes without any proper impact assessment. The implications of the change were unclear for those who have may retired within the last year. If I understood the Minister’s opening comments correctly, the change may not apply to those receiving pensions in payment who have retired in the last year and their pensions will be frozen. It would be helpful if he could reconfirm that and confirm whether any amendment to legislation is required to make it clear for the future.
The Minister also talked about how the Government came to decide on the use of the September 2015 CPI. He is right that the Treasury has a choice in this matter and will know that the year-to-date CPI figures were negative only in April, September and October. It is also the case that pensions in payment and the additional state pension are frozen rather than subject to negative revaluation, so will he explain again why the Government preferred to allow for a negative revaluation rate for active schemes rather than a nil adjustment—a point raised by Lord Whitty and others —when most observers would say that that appears far more consistent?
If the Minister has indeed decided that the change will not apply to those who have received pensions and have retired in the last year, will there be any impact and have any of those who have retired had the option to take any form of lump sum? Would there be any tax implications as a result? Has he taken legal opinion on that point, and if so what was the outcome? Does he have an estimate of the savings that he believes Government Departments will accrue as a result of the decision to apply a negative revaluation rate?
How has the decision been communicated? Will statements be sent out to scheme members, and if so when does the Minister expect that to happen? It would be helpful to hear what impact he believes the negative rate will have on confidence in the new pension scheme arrangements, and what capacity he believes is in place for any queries that people may rightly have when they receive their statement of accrued pension benefits and see that the figure has gone down. The Minister will know that MyCSP’s administrative difficulties were recently the subject of a National Audit Office report. Will it answer any queries that may come in on this matter, and will it have the capacity to cope with them? Finally, what assessment has the Treasury made of whether applying a negative revaluation rate rather than a nil adjustment will breach the cap?
Greg Hands
Let me see whether I can respond to the large number of reasonable questions that the shadow Minister asked me. The first thing to say is that she is right that this matter was debated during the passage of the 2013 Act, and it was pointed out that CPI could go negative in exceptional circumstances. Negative inflation is certainly not totally without precedent. It was useful that that debate was had and that Parliament approved the Act and many of the measures, including those that are now in the order. It approved the idea that if there were to be a negative revaluation, it would have to be brought to the House under the exceptional procedure, recognising that it would be an exceptional event.
Seema Malhotra
The words that were used were that it would also allow for parliamentary scrutiny, but the Minister has introduced the order without any impact assessment. What extra information will he provide?
Greg Hands
It is clear that today’s debate allows for parliamentary scrutiny, but the hon. Lady asks about an impact assessment. The impact will be fairly clear, and I will give some more examples.
To illustrate the amounts that we are talking about, let us compare workers in two different schemes, the local government scheme and the NHS scheme, both earning £26,000 a year. The local government worker will have earned about £40 more in their annual pension than the NHS worker, because of the trade-off between the revaluation and accrual rates. Because the revaluation rate will lead to a less favourable calculation for the local government worker but a more favourable one for the NHS worker, the local government worker’s pot will be reduced by 50p next year, whereas the NHS worker will get £7 more. Someone in the teachers’ scheme who is on £26,000 will also get about £7 per annum based on the revaluation. On the question of pensions in payment, there is a statutory link, so public sector pensions in payment will be frozen for the year without the need for new legislation or a further order.
The hon. Lady asked about the three months of negative CPI. I come back to the five main reasons why we have chosen to use the September CPI figure. First, we should set a precedent of using the CPI month that is most frequently used across Government. Secondly, in terms of the risk sharing, not only should scheme members benefit from the upside risk of revaluation but they should not be shielded from the downside risk. The third reason is consistency. Choosing a figure that is different from the September CPI figure would introduce the idea of significant policy discretion, going back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, which would open up scope for lobbying and negotiations in an area where one wants a long-term degree of certainty. I think that would be a very unhelpful and unfavourable development.
The fourth reason is that this figure honours the pension settlement. Many of the schemes reached agreement through negotiations with the unions on the basis of CPI-linked revaluation. Choosing the correct CPI figure helps to deliver on that settlement. The final point is about fairness across the schemes. Schemes that choose faster revaluation instead of a better revaluation rate should not be able to benefit from both fast accrual and a more generous revaluation.
Mr Winnick
The Minister has been telling us that it does not make that much difference and that the impact will be minimal. He said in an aside that ministerial pensions would also be affected. As he said, we will not be in great tears about that. Is it not a fact that in practice the CPI does not take into account housing costs, while RPI, which was used previously, did? Although the Minister minimises the impact through the figures he has given, the fact is that those on low income will undoubtedly find their income that much less, taking into account housing costs and the rest. I am not satisfied by any means that this measure is neutral and that it does not matter at all to the people to whom I have referred.
Greg Hands
Let me seek to answer that point. The Government announced in June 2010 that CPI would be used as the most appropriate measure of general level of prices for most benefits and the indexation of public service pensions. There was a legal challenge to that and the decisions of both the High Court and Court of Appeal ruled in the Government’s favour, finding that CPI was appropriate for both benefits and pensions uprating.
The third point I would make—
Greg Hands
Let me answer the first question. The hon. Gentleman will have a longer memory than I have, but RPI has also gone negative in the past. It is not impossible that exactly same phenomenon could happen with RPI, his preferred measure of inflation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I think I am right in saying that RPI was negative in 2008, during the great recession. It is a constant hazard of recessions that there will be those negative indicators. Am I not also right in thinking that the main reason why CPI was chosen over RPI was precisely that the vast majority of pensioners are not still paying off their mortgages, whereas those people who are have predominantly not retired?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is right. For all kinds of good reasons the Government made the decision to move this whole sector of public pensions and benefits from RPI to CPI. I think he is right that at that time RPI had gone negative.
If I could answer the final couple of points from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston—
Greg Hands
Shall I deal with these two and come back to the hon. Lady if I have not answered satisfactorily?
Greg Hands
Thank you. All scheme members will receive annual benefit statements setting out the revaluation amount. I am confident that members will understand that, where the unions and Government agreed the terms of the scheme, this agreement must be upheld.
In terms of the savings accrued by Government Departments, if I understood the question correctly, no savings have been assumed, as is consistent with the scheme rules, whatever the prices are. The majority of these pensions will not come into payment, of course, for many years. This is about consistency with the proposed final agreement so that they are fair to workforces, schemes and the taxpayers. I will give way and, if I have not answered all the hon. Lady’s questions, I will come back.
Seema Malhotra
I want to probe the Minister further on a few points that he missed or on which I am not completely clear. I understand that pensions in payment are frozen but may I check that in the particular circumstance of those who retire in-year in any month from April onwards, they will not be subject to a reduction? The implications are clear, because that means that any pension paid to members who had retired in-year would be reduced effectively and may have resulted in an overpayment—an unauthorised payment, with tax implications. In this particular circumstance, which may be a slight anomaly, can the Minister provide an absolute guarantee that no legislative change is required and that those who have retired in-year will not be adversely affected? Have any of those who have retired taken any lump sum payments and, if so, are they potential overpayments or not subject to such overpayment under the current law? When will the Government send out statements? Will it be possible to respond to queries that will inevitably be sent to the mailboxes of Opposition Members and to the Minister and others about statements that appear to show that members’ accrued pension rights have gone down? Where will those queries be answered? Who will constituents call, and will there be capacity to respond?
Greg Hands
Let me try to answer those further questions. The annual benefits statements will be sent out in the usual way. I am confident that members of schemes will understand what has happened and they will be told about the September CPI figure. I am confident that such inquiries will be dealt with in the usual way. In terms of pensions in payment, I am prepared to reassure hon. Members that we will deal with this complex matter. It is a slightly anomalous matter, which may require a legislative amendment or a small change to the schemes, but I assure the Committee that members will not be adversely affected in the particular case of an in-year withdrawal from the scheme.
Detailed impact assessments were prepared for the new scheme designs and were published by each Department. They will have taken into account prices impacts. The order implements the prices elements of those schemes designs and therefore there is no need to conduct a separate impact assessment for the technical implementation of what has already been decided and laid out.
To revalue using the September CPI figure, which is the subject of the order, is a very important step for the Government to take to be consistent and to set a consistent precedent that will be easily understood. It was for the Government to choose a measure of prices for the purposes of revaluing the prices element of the new career-average public sector pension schemes. The Government have chosen the measure that was agreed with the schemes after negotiation with the unions, following the precedent set by last year’s revaluation of the local government pension scheme and also the measure used for indexation of public services pension in payment. I should also re-emphasise that it maintains the real value of these pensions, ensures that there is an appropriate sharing of risk between members and Government and, importantly, that it sets the right precedent for the future. I therefore urge the Committee to support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016.
Draft Renewables Obligation Closure etc. (Amendment) Order 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewables Obligation Closure Etc. (Amendment) Order 2016.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.
The draft order closes the renewables obligation 12 months early to solar PV generating stations at 5 MW and below from 1 April 2016. It will apply to new generating stations and to existing stations that wish to add additional capacity up to the 5 MW threshold.
Solar PV is an important part of the low-carbon energy portfolio. It has seen strong growth in recent years, due in no small part to support from the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff schemes. In many ways that progress is excellent news, making a valuable contribution to our renewable electricity generation. The amount of deployment, however, has also raised concerns about its impact on the levy control framework, the budget that caps the amount of support paid for through consumers’ energy bills. I am sure hon. Members agree that the Government need to act responsibly when there is a risk of exceeding such a budget. We have therefore introduced a number of measures to deal with the projected over-allocation of renewable energy subsidies. In those measures we have aimed to strike the right balance between the interests of consumers and the interests of developers.
This time last year we were considering a similar order relating to the early closure of the renewables obligation scheme to large solar farms, those over 5 MW in size. Solar farms at that large scale were deploying much faster than previously expected. We were rightly concerned about the impact that that speed of deployment could have on the levy control framework. At the time it was decided not to extend the closure to projects at 5 MW or below, because the evidence suggested that the smaller schemes posed less of a risk to the levy control framework.
Hon. Members will recall, however, that in the debate last year it was made clear that the deployment of smaller scale projects would be closely monitored. If deployment were shown to be growing more rapidly than could be afforded, measures would be considered to protect the framework. The monitoring revealed that, if we did not act, up to four times more new solar capacity would be eligible for support this year and next under the renewables obligation than we had previously estimated, over the lifetime of the projects costing in the range of between £1.2 billion and £2 billion, in real terms at 2011-12 prices. I am sure the Committee agrees that in such circumstances the need for further action is essential.
In taking the action to complete the early closure of the RO to solar, we have aimed to strike the right balance between protecting bill payers and protecting developers who have made significant investments. That is why the draft order makes provision for a number of grace periods which mirror those offered as part of the large-scale closure. Stakeholders have welcomed that consistency.
One of the grace periods proposed was designed to protect developers that could show a significant financial commitment had been made on or before the date the proposals were announced. That required evidence that a planning application had been made, among other things. During the consultation, however, we received evidence that some developers were submitting invalid planning applications just to meet the deadline. We have therefore clarified the policy intent of the planning application requirement so that it is in line with what is considered a valid application in planning legislation throughout Great Britain.
When we closed the renewables obligation early to large-scale solar farms last year, we saw a rush of projects accrediting to beat the closure date. More than 1.5 GW of solar were accredited in March 2015 alone, covering an area equivalent to about 5,000 football pitches. This time around, because we had evidence to suggest that the costs of solar PV had fallen further and faster than previously anticipated, we proposed excluding new solar projects from our grandfathering policy if they did not meet the significant financial commitment criteria. That was necessary to avoid locking in possible overcompensation in the event of a similar rush of projects accrediting before the closure date. The change in policy will mean that if a banding review were to determine a lower level of support, projects that are not grandfathered would not maintain their level of support. That proposal was unpopular with developers, but it is necessary as a cost control measure.
We confirmed that change in policy last December, and at the same time we started to consult on the results of the banding review. We are currently considering the consultation responses. Subject to the outcome of that process, changes will be implemented later this year through a separate amendment to the Renewables Obligation Order 2015.
Our analysis indicates that the early closure proposed in the order will save between £60 million and £100 million a year from consumer bills. Total solar deployment under the levy control framework subsidy regimes will reach 12.8 GW by 2020, following the closure and the action taken in the recent feed-in tariff review. The electricity market reform delivery plan is our best estimate of what we need to hit our 2020 target and sets out an intention to deploy between 10 GW and 12 GW. So even with these changes, we are on track to exceed that range, which further underlines the need to take action to prevent further solar deployment under the scheme.
We have taken the opportunity in the order to remove an inconsistency between the Renewables Obligation Closure Order 2014 and article 91 of the Renewables Obligation Order 2015, which was drawn to our attention by stakeholders. We are making a technical amendment to make it clear that an operator of an offshore wind station benefiting from a closure grace period can apply to Ofgem for registration of offshore wind turbines until 31 March 2018. That does not change the policy intention.
The Government are committed to combating climate change, but in the most cost-effective way for bill payers. By summer 2015, the costs imposed on bill payers associated with support for renewable and low-carbon electricity generation were forecast to reach £9.1 billion in 2021, significantly above the target of £7.6 billion. If the costs reached that level, they would need to be met through increases in consumer bills. It is therefore absolutely right that we have looked at ways to protect value for money and affordability under the levy control framework. I hope hon. Members will agree that on balance, the approach we have taken is the right one. We are closing a demand-led scheme and taking action on overcompensation, while still allowing solar to be deployed under the revised feed-in tariff scheme. That will ensure that solar PV is supported in a way that offers better value for money for consumers. I commend the draft order to the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Gillan.
As the Minister set out, the effect of the order will be to close access to the renewables obligation for solar arrays of under 5 MW by March 2016. It represents another early closure of the RO, alongside the one for onshore wind and, as she mentioned, the previous one relating to larger solar. One might add that reining back renewables is another perverse, sudden policy intervention. As she mentioned, the category of solar in question eventually proved rather successful. If the solar industry at the sub-5 MW level had been as unsuccessful as, say, the green deal, perhaps the closure would never have happened. Perhaps that is not a terribly good example to use, because of course the green deal has been scrapped as well, on the grounds that it was unsuccessful.
To understand how sudden and random the intervention was, we need only look at the supporting documentation for the statutory instrument, from which we can see that the consultation on the early closure, and the grace periods attached to it, which the Minister drew attention to, commenced on 22 July and closed on 2 September—just when everyone was on holiday; but perhaps that is beside the point.
The date of 22 July happened also to be the date on which projects that were not fully agreed, for example in the planning process, could make no further progress through grace periods. To show how random that turned out to be, I have a note from a leading UK solar company, telling me that the 22 July grace period qualification deadline was
“by definition was unknowable even 24 hours in advance”
of its being announced and that 22 July was the first time anyone in the industry knew about the date. The company had one project, which it was 95% ready to submit as a full planning application; but it did not intend to do so until about a week after the consultation was published.
When the 22 July consultation was published, with the grace period definition within it, the company scrambled within 24 hours to try to submit its project, but failed by one day. With one day’s notice it did quite well to fail by one day; but nevertheless it was still cut off, which means it has £1 million tied up in a project that may now not qualify for anything, solely on a technicality it could not control, despite the fact that the planning application was 100% valid and less than one day late.
Indeed, the process of consultation has been substantially criticised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in another place, which drew particular attention to the deficiencies in the consultation period and the difficulties caused, particularly with the sudden emergence of grace periods, for the industry as a whole.
The central justification for the policy lurch is also to be found in the supporting documents; as the Minister has also mentioned, it is to keep within the levy control framework, that half-mythical, half-real device that now hovers over most renewable deployment for the next 10 years—or should we say the next five years.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I did intend to intervene on the Minister about that, but is not it high time there was full transparency on the levy control framework, so that given the lurches and changes there have been in policy we could at least have some idea of what is underpinning this? There are investors in particular who have got quite nervous in the last while, with the possible pushing up of premiums they will have to borrow with to invest in the future.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman has clearly, with a little long-sightedness, been looking over my notes, because that is exactly the point I need to emphasise now about the levy control framework. Although we think that the issue is about the next 10 years, as far as the deployment of renewables is concerned, we simply do not know in any detail what will happen to the levy control framework between 2020 and 2025, despite the fact that the Government have indicated that detail will be filled in at some stage. Obviously, that is a cause of continued consternation for those attempting to plan some sort of future for their longer-term projects.
We need to emphasise that many of these projects require a number of years to undertake, and therefore some form of guidance and certainty would be useful for projects that may be starting now and may not be operational and available for contracts for difference, if there are such things in the period between 2020 and 2025. It would be helpful if those companies had at least the assurance that they were not wasting their time by putting forward proposals for the future.
The impact assessment for the SI says in its opening lines:
“The proposed interventions intend to limit projected spending under the Renewables Obligation, while not harming projects that have already made significant financial commitments”—
which is not necessarily the case, as we have seen—
“This is to limit the impact on the LCF of significantly greater solar deployment than previously anticipated.”
Of course, we do not know the actual impact on the LCF of significantly greater solar deployment than previously anticipated because we do not know the effect of overspends within the LCF—that is, the LCF’s original projections for spending on solar and the overspend in terms of the variation from those original projections. We do not know that because apparently we are not to be trusted with that information. No variation figures have been published, nor are apparently likely to be.
Indeed, I have now asked three parliamentary questions on the effects of that variation, which is central to the impact assessment of this SI. On each occasion, I have been met in the answer with complete stonewalling, on frankly increasingly spurious grounds, on what those variation totals consist of. I am sure the Minister is aware of that issue, because it was she who signed off the answers to those questions on the future of the LCF variation.
It would be helpful for the passage of this debate if the Minister, perhaps by an intervention, gave me the actual sums for the variations over the period relating to solar. It would be even more helpful if she gave those relating to variations in her Department’s calculations as far as the LCF is concerned below 5 MW. We could then determine whether the variations in spending really had such an impact on the LCF that they caused this particular decision to come about, or whether they were of an order that would not have had much of a substantial impact on the LCF—as I suspect may be the case, though we do not know.
Andrea Leadsom
I am slightly offended to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks I have ever stonewalled him in answer to a parliamentary question. I assure him that I always seek to reply as openly and fully as I can to parliamentary questions, and I take particular care with his.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, as I have already set out, this early closure is saving in the region of £60 million to £100 million per year on the levy control framework. In aggregate terms, with the rate of deployment that we were seeing in the smaller solar fields, the total cost over the lifetime of the up to 20-year subsidy could have been up to £2 billion—a fairly princely sum. He will also be aware that the levy control framework projections will be set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility in only a couple of weeks’ time, during its Budget assessment.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that intervention. Frankly, the information she has provided the Committee with today is rather in line with the circumstances in which she felt she could respond to my parliamentary questions. I hope the Minister is not offended by any suggestion that she personally prevented me from getting the information that I requested. My point is that the levy control framework is now so opaque, in terms of its operation and its variations, that it affects proper scrutiny of how decisions have come about. That is not as a result of possible spending in the future but about variations in the past—what was originally thought to be the trajectory of the levy control framework and, as reported in the impact assessment, its actual trajectory in terms of overspending, and how that relates to subsets of that, in particular as we are discussing this afternoon, subsets of solar expenditure as they relate to sub-5 MW installations.
Mr MacNeil
Just picking up on the point about the LCF and the OBR, if the LCF is opaque, the OBR varies wildly in its estimates. In November 2014, the projected LCF spending was £6.25 billion in 2021, but by July 2015—eight months later—the forecast spending was £9.8 billion, a huge change of approximately 50% in the OBR’s projections. That further adds to the hon. Gentleman’s call for clarity and an end to the opacity.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, despite its length, which underlined the opacity of the levy control framework and the difficulty of getting to grips with what is really going on with those sums of money. We must also bear it in mind that those sums are not Treasury money. They are money from levies that will be raised from supply companies and passed on by, among others, the CfD counter-party body, which we discussed in a recent SI, to generators and, eventually, to bill payers. I mention that aspect of the LCF because the question we may want to ask this afternoon, in terms of the overall aspect of the levy control framework and how it relates to this particular level of solar deployment, is whether the projected effect on the levy control framework would actually be fatal to it or just a small aspect of it. We do not know, because we do not have the variation figures. Figures from the impact assessment suggest that the closure of the RO early for small solar of this range might put about £1, on average, on household bills—or £80 million per annum. While that is important for household bills, it looks to be—at first sight—a drop in the ocean for the entire LCF and, quite possibly, even within the boundaries of an adjustment of the LCF that the Department has available under the terms that it originally agreed.
There is a real question here, to which we will probably never know the answer because we do not have the proper information available. Was it necessary to do all this for just that result, especially when it is beginning to be established that solar deployment is—by moving the merit order on generators’ supply during the day—actually lowering prices to customers over the long term? Has the Minister analysed the impact on customers of that counter-indicator of the effect of solar on merit order? I suspect that if she did some work on that, she might find that the actual cost to customers, over time and in this context, would be close to nil.
We have some very good, immediate comparisons on customers’ bills to look at in the context of this afternoon’s debate. Just yesterday the Department published its proposals for capacity market reform and it has been estimated that, among other things, the new proposals will double the effect on customer bills of the previous capacity market arrangements—from £10 per annum on customer bills to over £20 per annum. That looks to me, at first sight, as though it will have a very substantial impact on the levy control framework, but of course the capacity payments, which do indeed filter through to customer bills in just the same way as levies do for renewables, are not within the LCF framework, or at least not as far as control totals are concerned. So it is official: you can whack up customer bills in a vain attempt to get some investors to invest in gas-fired power stations, with no evidence that it will actually happen, whereas when investors are seeking to invest in real solar power for the future, with the effect that I have described, it is necessary to stop that happening because it might affect the levy control framework.
This is a short-sighted, damaging measure, which never should have been considered in the first place. Solar is now on a good glidepath to no subsidy, perhaps in the next few years. To replace that glidepath with a cliff face in this way will surely kill the very technology that can, with some additional deployment, be of immense value to our energy plans for the future. That is why I am afraid we cannot support this measure today, and wish to divide on the matter.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. Great Grimsby produces a higher proportion of our electricity from renewable sources than any other town or city in the country, making my constituency the renewable capital of England—although mistakenly called a city, for some reason. That is partly as a result of the efforts of the solar industry. We have 10 companies working on solar installation in the town, and perhaps because hundreds of people in the town work on the offshore wind farms, the industry has raised people’s awareness of renewable energy more widely. Solar was, until recently, a growing sector in the town.
The director of Greater Grimsby Community Power has told me today that, although he is confident that he can meet all of his existing plans before the closure of the renewables obligation, the move that is being discussed today will mean that his organisation will not be able to expand beyond its current output. I think that that will be replicated across many organisations and companies in the country today.
My constituency really needs more of the jobs that these organisations are able to offer. For years we have consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, but the growth in the renewable energy industry from solar and other sources is giving people in the town renewed hope for their employment prospects and those of their children. As I mentioned to the Minister this morning, I recently hosted the renewable energy skills fair. Over 130 people attended, and they are keen to move into the sector, but the Government’s change in policy for the solar industry, particularly since May 2015, has led to the loss of thousands of jobs nationally, with many more at risk of going in the near future. This has been done at a time when the sector really is on the cusp of becoming economically competitive; so many more thousands of jobs could be created if the Government took a different approach.
Looking at the renewables sector more widely, the early closure of the renewables obligation could have a damaging impact on investor confidence across the sector. I know—as does the Minister—from speaking to the major companies that have built offshore wind farms in my constituency, that confidence is the key to unlocking private sector investment. What message are the Government sending to wind, tidal, biomass, nuclear and any other subsidy-reliant sectors by going back on their previous plans and cutting subsidies earlier than they previously agreed? This measure is damaging to our country’s reputation as a safe place to invest.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I want to put on record my opposition to this short-sighted and unnecessary measure. The Government’s argument in making this change to the renewables obligation implies that, but for the renewables obligation, there is a level playing field in the energy market for all types of producers. That is simply not the case.
The renewables obligation is an interim measure to support the solar industry, which is still young and emerging in the UK, to establish itself in the market. At the same time, the Government continue to subsidise fossil fuel-dependent producers in multiple ways, so we do not have a level playing field and now they are taking away the one measure that was playing a role in creating a more balanced market and allowing solar to emerge as a mature sector within it.
Despite the impact assessment, I do not believe that the Government have fully explored the impacts of their measure. The solar energy industry is dominated by small businesses. The impact assessment estimates that between 8,700 and 4,500 full-time-equivalent jobs will no longer be supported in the solar industry, but the assessment says that data are poor and that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the figures. Those are big job losses and there is no indication in the assessment that the Government have talked in any detail to small businesses in the solar industry, who will be directly affected, about the impact that the loss of the renewables obligation will have on them.
I met recently with a small-scale solar installation company in my constituency. The proprietor told me that since the announcement the bottom has dropped out of the solar market part of his business. He does a number of other things—he installs windows and so forth—so that did not directly translate into job losses for his business, but he said that interest from domestic consumers in installing solar panels had simply dried up. That has the effect of stopping individual households who want to do the right thing and do their bit towards combating climate change from doing so.
The installer I spoke to was mystified by the Government’s approach. He said that solar panel installation had been growing year on year as a component of his business and that, because prices from his suppliers were falling, it would not have been too long before that part of his business would have been profitable without subsidy. He therefore did not understand why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, the Government are leaping from a glide to a cliff-edge and, as the installer put it, the rug was simply being whipped out from underneath the sector.
We have no more pressing challenge than climate change and central to addressing that is a fundamental shift in how we produce energy in this country. This measure damages the progress made towards a shift to renewables. It is short-sighted, bad for business and bad for the environment. I oppose it wholeheartedly.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. The Minister spoke extensively in this and other debates on the renewables sector about how the Government are on track to meet their targets on solar deployment, which we are discussing today, and on onshore wind, which has faced a similar fate. I will read a quote:
“simply meeting the targets we have set ourselves will not be example enough for the rest of the world to follow.”
That is from the reset speech by the Secretary of State, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed there. If we simply focus on meeting the targets set some time ago, we will not be able to achieve what is required.
The UK proudly led the high ambition coalition at the Paris talks last year, but I wonder how we are to achieve that high ambition when we are deliberately curtailing our own ability to meet what is required. That will be damaging for industry, as we have heard from hon. Members, and will have an impact on jobs, but above all it will have an impact on our ability to reduce our carbon emissions in the most cost-effective way. Solar and wind are cheap forms of zero-carbon production, and to limit them in such a crass and blunt manner at a time when they are becoming even more cost-competitive is short-sighted, as a number of Members have said today.
I and my party believe that solar has an important role to play in the energy mix, and I very much agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and, in interventions, by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, about the absolute requirement of transparency in the levy control framework, the impact that the order will have on it and how low-carbon producers will be able to have certainty going forward.
We cannot look at the costs of the proposal, which the impact assessment says are potentially £100 million, in isolation. We need to look at the costs of replacing the solar capacity that would have come online with something else, but those costs are not clear. Nor can we look at the levy control framework in isolation, because we need to consider the capacity market, the strategic balance and the reserves. We need to look at it in the round, and for far too long debates have been focused on individual smaller policy areas. It is easy to pick off solar or onshore wind in isolation, but for some reason it does not seem to be quite so easy to pick off nuclear in isolation. If it costs £100 million a year to produce 2 GW using solar, I ask the Minister how much the annual costs of Hinkley Point will be. By my reckoning, solar would be better value. That has not been made clear, and there are significant concerns about that.
There are costs to inaction, which have not been and will not be factored in, and some of them are intangible. The order is not a sensible way forward. There is a positive transition to solar—the costs are coming down and deployment is going up, exceeding our ambitions. Coming back to the Secretary of State’s speech, that should be seen as a good thing, not a bad thing, because it means that we have had the right investment framework. More needs to be done, and there are intermittency problems with all forms of renewables, but when we were discussing the Energy Bill—perhaps in this very room—we had debates about storage, which can help make renewables more of a reality and provide the base-load that is required.
Technologies such as solar have a strong part to play in the future if they have the right Government support. The proper support has not been put in place, and the order will further undermine and erode that support and the confidence in the industry that we need in order to deliver what we are requiring of ourselves. As such, the Scottish National party will oppose it today.
Mr MacNeil
I had not intended to speak today, but given the length of my intervention I thought I should make a speech.
I back up the call that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test made. He was on my Committee, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, but sadly for a very short while. Because of his abilities and merits he has been promoted to the Labour Front Bench, and I congratulate him on that. He is absolutely right that the LCF needs to be transparent, and the assumptions and methodologies behind it have to be published. We cannot get far unless we have that.
The Minister said that £60 million to £80 million would be saved through this order on solar. That is less than 1% of an annual LCF payment, so it is not a lot. It is seen as a cost, and not as an investment. That is the philosophical difficulty with the Government. Any spending today is seen as a cost and not as an investment for the future.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby made a good point: the policy is costing investment and jobs in her constituency. I agree with that. There is another effect: the cost of capital will increase for people borrowing for future projects. In evidence to my Committee, some people said that the cost would increase by 2%, which would come to about £3 billion, which represents about 0.15% of GDP. That shows that DECC’s decisions are costly in many ways. There is also the point about the investment that has not happened in the past few months.
Therefore, I am worried by the direction of travel, the lack of a plan and the lack of transparency at DECC. We have to look at what else has happened over the last number of years, at previous spending on renewables and at what that has done to the wholesale price of energy. The wholesale price of energy has, of course, fallen because of the fall in the price of fossil fuels, but there has been a further push. Once they are constructed, renewables’ energy price is effectively zero. That pushes the wholesale price down further.
I saw a good example of that with my Committee in Denmark last week. We were told that, such was the expansion of renewables in Denmark and in Sweden, a nuclear plant that has been refurbished has asked not to be commissioned and used. Such is the competition from renewables that nuclear in Scandinavia is not competing, apparently. We should be aware of the effects of renewables on the energy market in various parts of Europe.
My Committee will tomorrow publish the investor confidence report, which is slightly hampering some of my remarks today because I would not want to be in contempt of Parliament. However, I encourage everyone to look out for that report tomorrow from the Energy and Climate Change Committee.
Andrea Leadsom
I have to say I am getting sick and tired of the barrage of complaints from Opposition Members on one day about the end to subsidies— at a time when subsidies are no longer necessary at the level they were—and the next day or the next week about fuel poverty, with Members throwing stones at the Government for not doing enough to reduce bills to consumers. They cannot have it both ways. They need to decide. Do they want subsidies to continue, regardless of the impact on bills?
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and others, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, complain about fuel poverty and about the effort to avoid the impact on consumer bills—they say it is only a pound, it is only £60 million, it is only £100 million, it is only £2 billion over 20 years. Why is that worth saving? Because the Government’s policy is to be the consumer champion and to ensure we decarbonise at the lowest cost.
Andrea Leadsom
No, the hon. Gentleman has had his say so many times and I am sick and tired of it. He needs to stop peddling that argument. The point of the Government’s policy is to support consumers and to decarbonise at the lowest price. We absolutely support subsidies for renewables. They have been so successful and their costs have come down so much. We have carefully consulted, and we have concluded that they no longer need the subsidies at the rate they were receiving them at and that the potential impact on consumer bills of continuing with subsidies at that rate is too great. That is the end of it. Those are the facts. I am sorry that Opposition Members want to play politics with that but we are on the side of the consumer.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test specifically asked about the eligibility date and why we chose 22 July 2015. That is the date on which we announced the proposals and the grace period was designed to align with that. The significant financial investment grace period is designed to protect those who made such commitments before we proposed to bring forward the RO closure date for solar PV. Moving the date to enable other less advanced projects to meet the eligibility criteria would increase the risk of more projects deploying at greater cost to the LCF. We have tried to strike the right balance between the public interest, including protecting consumer bills and ensuring the right mix of energy, and the interests of solar developers and the wider industry.
The other thing I will say to Opposition Members is that, since our changes to the feed-in tariff, deployment has continued in the solar sector. They like to speak as if no subsidy somehow means that no solar or renewable projects are coming forward. That is blatantly not the case. A significant and decent amount of renewables are still coming forward. Under the Government’s policy, we believe that the feed-in tariff will enable up to another 1.1 GW of new solar installations between now and 2020, protecting the consumer while protecting and supporting the industry.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked about job losses. The consultation period suggested that up to 23,000 jobs will continue to be supported by subsidy and, potentially, many others without subsidy. We are aware that large-scale solar projects are coming forward without subsidy, so it is simply not true to say, as she did, that there are thousands of job losses and that there will be thousands more. There is no evidence for that.
Other hon. Members asked about the LCF transparency. I will make a further point about that. We have been clear that we do not break down published information on components of LCF spend, because of the potential disclosure of commercially confidential information. In certain sites, that has to be the case and has to remain so.
Other hon. Members talked about our impact assessment not having sufficient data points. I can tell the Committee that there were 55,000 responses to the feed-in tariff review and, from that, we gained about 5,000 extra data points from which we were clearly able to target that policy to continue to support renewables, so it is simply not the case that the draft order has been ill-thought-through or that it is not seeking to strike a balance between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the industry.
We are confident in our policy on renewables. Those industries are superb and great British success stories. Hon. Members will be aware that 99% of all solar installations have taken place since 2010, when the Conservative-led coalition Government came to office. Today, still, the vast majority of solar deployments has taken place under a Conservative Government.
In answer to the specific point about nuclear made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, he must realise that solar and nuclear are not directly comparable. Solar is not dispatchable; it provides electricity when the sun is shining. Nuclear is dispatchable; as the hon. Gentleman is aware, most days we get 19% or 20% of our electricity, day in, day out, from dispatchable, reliable nuclear electricity. That cannot be the case from solar.
Callum McCaig
I accept that, but will the Minister likewise accept the point that I made, which is that if we are to be serious about storage, with investment and a proper mechanism for it to happen, solar can do that and, arguably, at a similar cost to nuclear, if not cheaper?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman did not make that point, but I entirely agree. As he well knows, in the Department we are looking closely at what exactly we can do to bring forward more storage. He also mentioned that nuclear in Scandinavia is asking not to be brought forward because it cannot compete with renewables. As he knows, what is meant there is hydroelectricity, which is dispatchable, so he makes my point for me. We cannot compare intermittent technologies with dispatchable electricity—it is simply not relevant to our discussion.
I thank members of the Committee for their contributions to this debate. It is very important to make it clear on the record that this Government are on the side of consumers. We will absolutely keep the lights on and decarbonise at the lowest cost to consumers, keeping the balance right between the interests of consumers and of developers.
Mr MacNeil
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I do not want to make her any more sick and tired, so I will ask her briefly—[Interruption.] I am not sure which one is the Minister.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Lady agree that present-day consumers have benefited from past investment in renewables?
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely agree. As I have just said, 99% of all solar installations have taken place since 2010. This Government have done more to promote renewables than any other Government ever in the UK. Some £52 billion has been spent on the renewables sector since 2010. I absolutely agree. We utterly support this sector and we are keen to continue to do more for it, but not at any price and not at subsidy levels that harm consumers and are not needed by the industry.
In conclusion, this order achieves a balance between the interests of consumers and the interests of developers. The grace periods will make sure that significant financial commitments are protected.
Question put.
Ministerial Corrections
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Given that Ministry of Defence procurement operates under European law, what assessment has the Minister made of a potential exit from the European Union on UK SMEs that rely on MOD contracts?
Mr Dunne
As my hon. Friend knows, the UK defence and security industry is the largest in Europe. As the default position, we continue to place contracts on the basis of open competition. EU procurement directives apply to our procurement, which means that EU contractors are eligible to compete for our contracts in the same way as UK and other international companies, other than when we declare an article 346 exemption for warlike stores, which accounts for about 45% of our procurement.
[Official Report, 29 February 2016, Vol. 606, c. 662.]
Letter of correction from Mr Dunne:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence.
The correct response should have been:
Mr Dunne
As my hon. Friend knows, the UK defence and security industry is the largest in Europe. As the default position, we continue to place contracts on the basis of open competition. EU procurement directives apply to our procurement, which means that EU contractors are eligible to compete for our contracts in the same way as UK and other international companies, other than when we declare an article 346 exemption for warlike stores.
Mesothelioma
The following is an extract from Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence on 29 February 2016.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
5. What plans he has to reform compensation for armed forces veterans affected by mesothelioma.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
When I announced to the House on 16 December that veterans diagnosed on or after that date with diffuse mesothelioma as a result of their service would have the option of receiving a lump sum of £140,000, I also committed to looking at whether it could be extended to veterans diagnosed before that date. We have kept our word and I am delighted to confirm that the option of a lump sum payment will be extended to veterans in receipt of a war pension for mesothelioma diagnosed before 16 December 2015.
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is thoroughly good news. Following the campaigns of many in this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) and my friend the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), this announcement will be very, very welcome. How will people affected be able to claim the money?
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind comments. I have instructed the Veterans Agency to contact all those we know of with immediate effect. I hope the payments will be made on or shortly after 11 April.
[Official Report, 29 February 2016, Vol. 606, c. 667.]
Letter of correction from Mr Lancaster:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) during questions to the Secretary of State for Defence.
The correct response should have been:
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind comments. I have instructed Veterans UK to contact all those we know of with immediate effect. I hope the payments will be made on or shortly after 11 April.
Campaign against Daesh
The following is an extract from Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence on 29 February 2016.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
What discussions has the Secretary of State or other members of the Government had with our allies inside and outside the middle east about extending military action, including airstrikes, to Libya?
Michael Fallon
There have not been discussions about extending airstrikes to Libya because at the moment there is no Government in Libya. We have been working to assist the formation of a new Government in Libya, and it is then for that Government to make clear what assistance they require. We are party to the Libyan international assistance mission, and we will see exactly what kind of support the new Government want—whether it is assistance with advice or training, or any other kind of support.
[Official Report, 29 February 2016, Vol. 606, c. 658.]
Letter of correction from Michael Fallon:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence.
The correct response should have been:
Michael Fallon
There have not been discussions about extending airstrikes to Libya because at the moment there is no Libyan Government Cabinet. We have been working to assist the formation of a new Government in Libya, and it is then for that Government to make clear what assistance they require. We are party to the Libyan international assistance mission, and we will see exactly what kind of support the new Government want—whether it is assistance with advice or training, or any other kind of support.
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Southeastern Train Services
(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
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the reliability of Southeastern train services.
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and I welcome the Minister. We had hoped to meet her to discuss the Southeastern situation before this debate, but we are here now and perhaps it is better to discuss it in public, so that people know what is said.
The situation that we have found ourselves in since Christmas is not entirely the fault of Southeastern—Network Rail is responsible for more than 70% of the failures—but quite frankly my constituents do not care who is to blame. They want their trains to turn up on time, as stated on the timetable, and to take them where they need to go. Since Christmas, the situation has deteriorated significantly. Trains are constantly being delayed, cancelled or diverted, and the landslide took services out for about a week.
My constituents and those of other hon. Members are bombarding us with complaints and angry messages. I will give a few examples. One constituent complained about the
“appalling level of service provided by Southeastern on the evening of Friday 19...Trains reduced from 8 and 12 carriages to only four”.
Another wrote:
“Terrible service on the Sidcup line…Constant complaints to Southeastern but no improvements despite repeated promises”.
One constituent said that when the first Bexleyheath service of the day was cancelled, he found that he could not use his season ticket to get the bus and tube from North Greenwich, because it was not recognised by Southeastern as a “reasonable alternative route”. Someone else complained about the
“appalling and deteriorating levels of service on the Sidcup line”,
which also serves part of my constituency. She regularly uses the delay-repay compensation scheme, which she found to be “clunky and time consuming”. I will come to that later, but I have received constant complaints about difficulties in claiming compensation for lateness or cancellations. Another person complained about constant delays after Christmas in a commute to London Bridge:
“Been commuting for 40 years and never complained before. Worst it has ever been.”
It just goes on and on, and I am sure other hon. Members could give similar examples.
To give my own experience during this chaos, on one occasion I managed to get a train in the direction of Eltham as far as Lewisham, from where there was supposed to be a replacement bus service. It was impossible to find the bus stop for the replacement service; the signage was appalling. I approached a group of staff, who were clearly beleaguered, and asked them when the bus service was likely to arrive, but they had no idea. I asked, “Where does it stop?” and they waved in the general direction of the outside of the station. I felt sorry for them, but they were not providing a good service, although that has to be because they had not been provided with the information by the rail company.
On another occasion—it was the same scenario—I went outside the station to get a bus and found a blind man wandering around the building works. I do not know if anyone else has had the pleasure of trying to find a way through the roadworks outside Lewisham station, but it is difficult for someone who is not blind. Yet I found that man just wandering around. I grabbed him by the arm and asked, “Where do you want to go?” He wanted to go in the same direction as me, but how is it that he was not given assistance? Why were the staff not on the lookout for people who clearly needed such assistance? He wanted to get to Bexleyheath; he could have been put on the replacement bus service, but was given no help whatever.
On another occasion, going home late in the evening on a Bexleyheath train, we got to Lewisham only to be told that the train was no longer for Bexleyheath, but for Sidcup. People on the train just got up and blocked the doors. They were so fed up with what was going on that they stood with their feet in the doors and said, “We’re not putting up with this anymore.” When they saw me—I had got off the train and was wandering across to see if a train was ever going to be going in the general direction of Eltham—they said, “We’re protesting: we’re fed up with this.” I do not know what the end of that scenario was, but it demonstrates the scale of the frustration that people are feeling about the standard of the service.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The Labour party may be divided over its leadership, and the Conservative party over Europe, but what unites us all is Southeastern. It is fair to say that its service has deteriorated of late. Does he agree that Southeastern seems to have all but given up on getting its franchise renewed?
Clive Efford
That is a worry and something the Minister should consider. If that is the case, the Government should take the franchise away now, because if Southeastern is going to look at its bottom line rather than the quality of the service, passengers will continue to suffer. That was a prime example of giving way to someone and them coming up with a better line in their intervention than I have in my speech, so I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on pulling all that together.
People in south-eastern London have suffered for decades. We had the disastrous privatisation that gave us the Connex franchise. We then had a period of relative stability, when the franchise was taken back in-house—in effect, nationalised—but that was followed by the ridiculous decision under the Labour Government to reprivatise it. I opposed that at the time, but we are where we are.
Passengers who use London Bridge station understand that the Thameslink scheme is bound to cause disruption. They have accepted that, despite the chaos at Christmas 2014. At the time, the Minister accepted that there had been an unacceptable deterioration in the service and she took action—I commend her for that—but this year’s performance has deteriorated to an all-time low. Passengers had accepted that train patterns would be substantially altered and that regular journeys had to change, because trains that people were used to catching might no longer be going to Cannon Street or Charing Cross, but the level of disruption they are suffering now is nothing to do with that. On the lines between Dartford and London Bridge, the service has failed, although when we had discussions before the Thameslink works started, we were told that the situation was under control. As I said, my constituents do not care who is to blame; they want to know that the tickets they purchase will get them to where they want to go.
I am grateful to the Library for an excellent paper it has produced to provide Members with information for this debate. It sets out how the public performance measure is calculated. The PPM shows the percentage of trains that arrive at their terminating station on time and combines figures for punctuality and reliability into a single performance measure. It is the industry standard for measuring performance, but it does not distinguish between extreme lateness and a brief delay. Southeastern’s PPM has fallen from 91.3% 12 months ago to 83.2% now. The average for all operators is 89.3%, so we are way below that. Another measure is right-time performance, which uses the percentage of trains arriving at their terminating station early or within 59 seconds of schedule. Southeastern’s right-time performance has fallen from 65.2% 12 months ago to 53.5% now. The average for all operators is 64.8%. Again, it is well below average.
The cancellation and significant lateness measure is for when a train is cancelled at origin or en route—this was my experience on the train that was going to Bexleyheath but then went to Sidcup—and when the originating station is changed or the train is diverted. A train is significantly late if it arrives at its terminating station 30 minutes or more late. On that measure, 2.4% of Southeastern trains were cancelled or significantly late 12 months ago, but the figure is now 4.3%—it has nearly doubled—while the average for all operators is 3%.
On every single measure we see poor performance from Southeastern. In autumn 2015, Passenger Focus showed that Southeastern’s passenger satisfaction was 75%, down from a high of 84% in 2013. In autumn 2015, the Chiltern franchise had the highest satisfaction rate, at 91%. The bottom three ranked operators were Thameslink, Southern—they are franchised as Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern—and Southeastern, which share the common factor of going into London Bridge. That must account for some of the dissatisfaction that people have with the service.
Last week, Which? published its annual passenger satisfaction survey. Southeastern was placed joint last, with an overall score of 46%; last year it was at 45%. Which? considers the impression of passengers over the previous year of the service provided. The difference between that and the Passenger Focus survey is that Passenger Focus considers the last journey that passengers made. That can be open to all sorts of factors, which can distort the figure. I would say that the Which? methodology far more accurately reflects the passenger experience than that of Passenger Focus, which is now Transport Focus. Those figures demonstrate just how consistently poor the service has been.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am sorry that the fracture clinic will prevent me from being here for the entirety of the debate. I thank and congratulate the hon. Gentleman for holding this debate. Many of my constituents have experienced the same difficulties he has described. While I believe there will be better times around the corner once the track and station at London Bridge are developed, I am still concerned that we are short of capacity on these lines. Does he agree that it would be a huge concern if plans to give the Mayor of London wider powers for outer London were to affect the capacity further south? Does he also agree that to free up capacity we need a high-speed rail link from Bexhill and Hastings to St Pancras to create more capacity for his constituents?
Clive Efford
I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in pursuing his scheme; I have got my own, which I will come to shortly. I have to say, Transport for London cannot be worse than Southeastern. It has had a positive impact when it has taken over other lines in similar circumstances, so hopefully it can achieve what Network Rail and Southeastern have failed to achieve in south-east London. Key bottlenecks such as Lewisham have to be overcome to achieve some of the things that Transport for London is talking about. I remain sceptical about whether it can achieve everything it says it can, but I am prepared to run with it and to be a critical friend, guiding it along the path of improving our train services in south-east London.
We need to hold people to account for what the figures demonstrate is consistent failure. The Minister did take action last Christmas when the service was appalling and there was a dangerous number of passengers on the concourse at London Bridge, but we must do more. To quote the Minister back at herself, on 28 January she admitted to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) that
“Southeastern was not at the top of the list for overall satisfaction. It is not quite at the bottom, but it is not at the top either.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 526.]
It was actually second from bottom and it has been so consistently. The Minister was reluctant to call it how it is, but we do our constituents a disservice when we do not do that. We really need to call it how it is to hold these people to account.
One concern I have about accountability is that the penalties that the franchise operators are required to pay the Government if they fail in their obligations are shrouded in commercial confidentiality, as are the payments made if they overperform. I would like to see some examples of overperformance—it would cheer me up no end. Why is that shrouded in secrecy? It is public money and a public service, so there should be public accountability. The Government should be proud to say, “We have penalised this franchise” when it fails our constituents. They should say, “Yes, we have made them pay a price and forced them to reinvest this money in this way to address this failure.” We should not say to the companies, “You can come and run a public service. You can hide behind commercial confidentiality and not let people know the price being paid.” All too often we see these people paying themselves huge bonuses in public services after such failures and that is not acceptable.
I want the Minister to ensure that we can see how the companies are being penalised for failures, because of the effect of those failures on people’s lives. They are late for work, late for job interviews, late getting a connecting train. We have all travelled on these train services that get stuck, and we have heard people’s life stories on their mobile phones as they go into meltdown around us because of delays. It is not right that the companies are not held publicly accountable when their failure is on such a scale.
Given the scale of the problem, the compensation scheme seems to be underused by passengers. Something needs to be done about that, because if we can make compensation easily accessible the companies might start to consider the standard of their performance a little better. People are eligible for compensation after their train is delayed for 30 minutes. The compensation scale goes up to a 100% refund for 60-minute delays, but according to the Library’s document no figures are available for take-up. I suggest that take-up is extremely low. The Office of Rail and Road found that just 11% of passengers surveyed nationally always or usually claimed compensation when they were entitled to it; 15% said they rarely claimed; and 68% said that they never complained.
We clearly need to do more to encourage passengers to come forward. Rather than come to their Member of Parliament, because they see us as the only outlet to vent their spleen, perhaps they could by right claim their compensation and make their voices heard directly with the franchise operators. Which? is running a campaign to make rail refunds easier that calls for
“clear information on how to get a refund for rail delays…all train companies offering cash as the first option”
and for train companies
“to be held to account if they fail to encourage passengers to claim refunds.”
I commend that campaign to the Minister and urge her to support it.
The Minister said on 28 January:
“We effectively now have rail fares going up at the lowest level”.—[Official Report, 28 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 526.]
Is that absolutely correct? I have figures that say an annual season ticket from Eltham to central London has gone up by £328 a year—33%—since 2010. I do not think my constituents would say fares have been going up at the lowest level. Would the Minister care to comment on that? I do not think it is true. People are being forced to pay more for a service that clearly is not up to the standard they have a right to expect.
I know that an announcement is pending about increased capacity on our rail services—12-car trains. I have been campaigning on that for 15 years and been fobbed off with “The electricity supply isn’t up to it. The platforms aren’t long enough. We have terrible bottlenecks at Lewisham and London Bridge. Twelve-car trains are such a drag,” and all the rest of it. The fact is that in south-east London we do not have direct access to the London underground. Most of our journeys are like the spokes of a wheel, going in to central London and the main terminals at London Bridge, Charing Cross, Waterloo and others. Our constituents rely heavily on those services and have few alternatives. Buses do not really provide an alternative for journeys of that length, nor do buses have the capacity for the number of people who want to make those journeys. There is a transport deficit in south-east London.
We constantly hear from the people at Transport for London about how much TfL must invest in the London underground and how important it is to increase capacity, and I get that. I understand how vital it is to London. However, TfL is even calling the new underground line going through New Cross the orbital route; that is how far TfL thinks London goes out—as far as New Cross. People outside its orbit are Pluto, or something. Because we do not have direct access to alternatives, our rail services are vital.
For too long people have been crammed on to overcrowded carriages, particularly at peak times. This morning, for example, I was waiting at the station at 7.35 at Eltham. The Victoria train came in and it was six carriages long, at peak time. It is not acceptable. The train that I caught to Charing Cross was eight carriages long. At those times of the day they should be 12-car trains. Trains are packed by the time they get to places such as Eltham, Kidbrooke and Blackheath; anyone getting on at Lewisham needs a crowbar. It is not acceptable. We have got to have increased capacity on our rail services.
TfL is very keen to take over the service and it would have my blessing, but as I said, I will be a critical friend. If it is going to increase the frequency of trains on the service it will have to deal with the signalling system. It is no good putting more frequent trains through with fewer carriages; we need more capacity. I will support TfL’s bid for the metro services on Southeastern, but we need to ensure that the Government and MPs scrutinise what it says about what it will deliver. We need to improve the service and increase its capacity significantly.
The landslide caused me great concern. I thought, “What if it had happened as a train was going by?” which was highly likely, because the vibration of a train could have exacerbated the situation and brought a landslide down. Some infrastructure was involved, so I want to know if a proper survey of the infrastructure has been done. As I said, more than 70% of the delays have been due to signals and infrastructure under the control of Network Rail. Does it survey the infrastructure to the point at which it identifies likely problems and puts them right, so that they do not become constant nagging problems and a cause of future delays? It seems that the system is creaking at the seams. Is Network Rail on top of that? I would like the Minister’s assurance that she is on top of Network Rail, and that she will ensure it tries to drive out the gremlins that cause all the problems for Southeastern and our constituents.
As I have mentioned, I want the penalties and rewards for train operating companies’ performance to be published and the people concerned held to account. I would like the Minister to put pressure on the transport operating companies to make people aware of compensation schemes. Above all I want the Government and TfL to recognise that south-east London has a transport deficit, which cannot continue to be ignored when the future expansion of rail services, including such things as the underground and the docklands light railway, is considered. The situation in south-east London is unacceptable. I look forward to hearing what the Minister intends to do about it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. As we can see, seven hon. Members want to speak. I will start the winding up speeches at 10.38, which gives 10 minutes each, plus two minutes for Mr Efford to wind up. Please do the maths, but I think we are looking at perhaps just under five minutes each.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for calling this important debate. I stand here as the representative of two communities—the one that relies on and is tortured by the Tonbridge line, and the one that is tortured by the Maidstone East line. On their behalf I voice my displeasure at Southeastern’s woeful performance, not just in the past three months, which—let us face it—have been particularly awful, but in the 10 months for which I have represented my constituents, and indeed many years before that.
I have had the great privilege of meeting some people from Southeastern, and only this week I heard that they believed they were still meeting their franchise targets. I do not know quite to the smallest detail how the franchise targets are met, but if their belief is correct it tells me something simple—that the franchise targets are wrong. It cannot be right that one in five trains is coming in late, leaving workers late for meetings, leaving families without a father or mother at home for dinner, and forcing people to change plans—and that that is still somehow acceptable in relation to meeting targets.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about Southeastern’s performance. I have travelled by train for the past 15 years, but now, as a Member of Parliament, I do so every day; and it is the regular day in, day out delay, even if it is a few minutes, that means a lot to my constituents. If Southeastern cannot perform it should do as c2c does. After two minutes, if there is a delay, there should be automatic compensation for constituents.
Tom Tugendhat
I agree entirely and thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I have spoken to the Rail Minister about it, and am delighted that she is in her place, because I know she is addressing those very points. I know I am not speaking against her but in support of her as she fights for all our constituents.
Gareth Johnson
On that point about compensation, does my hon. Friend agree that the “delay repay” scheme should kick in far earlier than the 30 minutes that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) alluded to? Perhaps compensation for passengers who are delayed should commence after 15 minutes.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is right; we need to get responsiveness into the system, and the way to do so, I am afraid, is through the pocketbook, as we all know.
I was canvassing in Old Bexley and Sidcup this weekend for the Conservative party’s wonderful mayoral candidate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I know that he will be working hard on this issue and ensuring that the trains respond significantly better to his constituents, although perhaps not mine. In his seat as well, the pressure on the trains is great, so I hope he will forgive me as I take his name in vain and press for a better service in Old Bexley and Sidcup.
I have been calling for more rail carriages on the Maidstone East line in my own area. The carriages introduce at least an element—I know that is not all of it—of resilience and flexibility into the system. That is why I raised only this week with Southeastern the question of what more it can do. It said, “Well, we could have a few more drivers on stand-by.” I asked why it was not doing that, and it said, “It’s not about the money.” I ask Southeastern again here today: why is it not doing that? If this is not about money, and if more carriages and more drivers allow for a bit of resilience and flexibility, surely that is the right thing to do for people across our county.
This is a county-wide problem. Tonbridge is the heart of the Kent rail network and, as Members will know, is the most important rail exchange in the county. Indeed, it has running through it one of the longest pieces of straight track in the United Kingdom. It was built in days when the Victorians did not value the land around the beautiful weald of Kent or the extraordinary richness of our communities. However, that is not true today. Our communities are the most blessed and the most beautiful in our country, and those train lines now provide the opportunity for some of the finest people in our entire kingdom to get to work and to generate the income that pays for the schools, hospitals and, indeed, armed forces across our country. It is therefore essential that we look at these rail networks not as a luxury—they are not that—or as some way of getting people home or to work on time, with 15 minutes here or there being just a problem, but as a fundamental part of the British economy.
It is essential we get this right, and the only way to do that is by holding the people who run the rails and the trains to account. This is not a question of public ownership or private ownership. It is not an ideological question for us to discuss; I think one Member of the House of Lords recently described the Opposition as “croissant eating”. No—this is a very important question about how we deliver results for our people. I am adamant that we forget the ideology and focus on what matters: delivery, delivery, delivery.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I do not want to repeat the points that have been made today but rather touch in my remarks on three particular issues that affect my constituents: the overcrowding of carriages; the reliability of the service; and the poor communication from Southeastern about the delays and overcrowding.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on securing this vital debate. As other hon. Members have said, Southeastern trains and the lines that run through our constituencies are vital not only for getting our constituents to work and bringing economic benefits—with delays causing a loss of productivity—but for people’s general quality of life. There is a historical under-investment in public transport in south-east London. My constituents rely heavily on these lines and have suffered for too many years. We know the particular problems associated with the London Bridge rebuild, but as other hon. Members have said, this issue predates that and has got far worse since Christmas.
I now receive complaints about late, cancelled or overcrowded Southeastern train services nearly every day. As a commuter, I know just how frustrating not only major disruptions but the disruptions and delays that happen every single day can be. Whether it is two minutes here or five minutes there, it is often without explanation and causes immense frustration to the people waiting, who cannot get adequate compensation and are not regularly notified. The 7.39 train this morning from Deptford was cancelled without explanation, forcing people on to other lines or tube lines such as the Jubilee line which are already crowded.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman echoes a point I have made before. If there are constant daily delays, and if Southeastern cannot get its act together—whether that is through trains with more carriages or ensuring that trains run on time—it should surely give up the franchise to someone who can do it.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that Southeastern has lost the chance it had to restore faith and confidence in its service. The franchise should be removed. I would like to hear the Minister’s view on whether that should happen now or in 2018, when the contract lapses. However, Southeastern has lost the opportunity to recover that confidence.
The complaints and the frustration have given rise to a number of community groups in my constituency. I think of the Charlton Rail Users’ Group and the Greenwich Line Users’ Group, which exist solely to represent constituents’ concerns about the inadequate performance of Southeastern and to lobby for better services. Those groups are concerned with the three elements I mentioned.
The first element is overcrowded carriages. In late 2014, as a local councillor, I met the then managing director of Southeastern trains with my predecessor, the right hon. Nick Raynsford. We were promised that there would be 12-car trains by January 2015 on the Greenwich line. They did not materialise. I believe that that was because they were put on the Lewisham line, which if anything is more pressured in terms of capacity constraints. It is essential that we get those 12-car carriages, because on many occasions at the moment we do not even have 10-car carriages; as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, they are often carriages with eight cars or even less.
Southeastern, to give it its due, has squeezed out as much as it perhaps can in terms of enhancements via changes to the timetable. It now comes down to a question of rolling stock. There has been a delay in the Government’s announcement on rolling stock. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can shed any light on what may be coming forward, in particular for the Greenwich line.
It is indicative of how Southeastern has planned the improvements to its services that even if we get those 12-car trains, some of the stations on the Greenwich line in my constituency, such as Woolwich Dockyard, will not be able to have those trains stopping at the station because the station has not been fitted in a way that allows 12-car trains to stop, or if the trains are able to stop, it will be with selective door operating to allow people to get on and off at those stations. I would like some assurance that if 12-car trains do come online, the people who will be put out by that problem will get fair compensation if they have to travel onwards to another station, such as Woolwich Arsenal.
I turn to service reliability, which, as Members have said, is extremely poor on these lines. By the magic of social media, I asked my constituents if they had any thoughts or comments in advance of this debate. I asked them to keep it clean, which reduced the number of responses. You could not make up some of the responses I got back. One gentleman told me that the 6.01 pm train yesterday on the Greenwich line was delayed for 30 minutes because of problems with the announcement system; passengers learn that from the driver via the announcement system. That is quite a common example of the bizarre things that happen. I was once on a train that had to stop and wait outside London Bridge because the sun was in the driver’s eyes. That sort of service just irritates people, frankly, when they are paying a lot of money for their train journeys.
I will finish on poor communication. I made the case long in advance of the London Bridge rebuild that communication about the disruption that would take place because of the Thameslink programme was inadequate. My constituents still regularly think that the Charing Cross line is going to be restored on the Greenwich line; it is not. I think there are good reasons why it should not be, in terms of increased frequency of trains and reliability, but some of my constituents do not know that. Communication in general is poor and needs to improve.
Turning to the future, I fully support the removal of the Southeastern franchise. There is a good case for Transport for London taking over these services in partnership with the Mayor. The way that that potential deal was announced a few weeks back was rather shabby and got mixed up with the election campaign, but there is general cross-party consensus on that. Some of us have been campaigning on it for a long time. We need to scrutinise that deal. In particular, we need assurances that in the years left to the Southeastern franchise up to 2018 it will not be allowed to let performance slip even further. It has an incentive, as part of the service groups, to perhaps bid for elements of Transport for London’s services once it is taken over in 2018. However, we need to know how Southeastern can be pressed in the years ahead, if it is going to lose its contract, to not let performance slip even further. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I will try to be brief and keep to your advised timing, Mr Evans.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on securing the debate and thank him for asking many important questions about infrastructure, compensation and penalties.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), since becoming a Member of Parliament last May I have received a steady flow of complaints about the problems with Southeastern rail services on the line that goes through Maidstone East in particular, and on the lines from Faversham and Headcorn. Since Christmas, however, that flow of complaints has accelerated, reflecting a substantial deceleration in the train services and their reliability. Regular weekly complaints from people have now become daily complaints, as day in, day out, their trains to and from work are delayed, and not just by two or three minutes, which is irritating and causes difficulties for people, but often by half an hour or an hour, with train cancellations, too. Many major events have also completely kyboshed the services for hours.
Other hon. Members have shared the data so I will not go through those again now, but as my hon. Friend said, we are now seeing about one in five trains running late. What the averaging of the data obscures is how often it is the same train that somebody is delayed on, day after day, and how very often they are the peak-time trains. That is not to say that other trains do not need to be on time, but we know that people on peak-time trains are rushing to get to and from work and to get to meetings, appointments and other commitments. The statistics mean that people’s lives are being affected badly by this experience of the train service. They are unable to be as effective at work and are missing meetings. They have to leave earlier and get home later, which is affecting their family life. Parents are unable to get home to put children to bed. All these things that people build their lives around and make decisions about are being affected so seriously by the problems with the train services at the moment.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point about the delays and what they mean for people’s lives. Linked to that point is the fact that if somebody gets to the station and their train is delayed, when they do get on a train, it is packed. They cannot even get a seat, so it is also about the conditions they face. The argument to be made to the Minister and Southeastern is that there should be the extra carriage. I see that from Victoria to Gillingham on a daily basis. Capacity is a key issue, along with delays.
Helen Whately
I agree with my hon. Friend that capacity is an issue as well as the problem of delays.
I appreciate that Southeastern and Network Rail have made some effort to communicate with Members such as me, who have been in frequent contact with them, urging them to give us explanations. They have told us about the problem at Dover with the sea wall coming down and how that has made things more difficult for them. They have told us about landslips because of the extra rail, signalling problems with the upgrades and problems with de-icing. The Minister may well cover that in more detail. We understand that it is not always easy to provide a good service and that things happen, but still, that is not good enough. We also appreciate that they are making efforts to improve the services, with extra drivers, more engineers and de-icing at milder temperatures. Those are steps in the right direction, but still, I am afraid that I do not have confidence on behalf of my constituents that these services are going to improve sufficiently to provide a reliable and acceptable level of service.
I say that having directly asked Southeastern and Network Rail just a couple of days ago, face to face, how good the service was going to be as a result of the changes they are making. They were unable to say. They were unable to say even what improvement they are aiming to achieve as a result of the changes. There was a bit of a shrug of the shoulders—“We’re trying”—and that is not just not good enough. Along with their warning that the problems with the sea wall at Dover might continue through to the end of this year and with London Bridge work continuing through all of next year, this will drag on for two years at best. My constituents need to know that they will get a better service within that time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, we also found it bizarre that, given all that is going on with the service—I appreciate that both Southeastern and Network Rail are involved, although that answer is not acceptable to passengers—we are told by Southeastern that it is compliant with its franchise. That suggests that something simply is not right with the way in which it is held to account.
Along with solutions to the short-term problems, we need to start seeing some plans for better service beyond the next couple of years. We are seeing enormous population growth across Kent—my constituency is part of that—and there is infrastructure there that is often 50 or more than 100 years old. It is simply not fit for the level of use that it is getting.
Although we have had High Speed 1, for my constituents that is largely a myth. They sometimes get trains that are called “high speed”, but after a short stretch of going at high speed, the trains just clunk along on the old infrastructure and are scarcely faster than the ordinary service, although they are more expensive. The high-speed service simply bypasses most of my constituents who commute on the Maidstone East line. Other parts of the country are getting High Speed 2, Crossrail and great investment. Given all this population growth and with the economy being so dependent on the productivity of all these people—their quality of life is an issue as well—we need to know that there is material investment coming down the line, no pun intended, in the train infrastructure, so that beyond the short-term problems, we will see an improvement in quality.
Will the Minister say what she is going to do to make sure that Network Rail and Southeastern get on top of the problems in the short term? We cannot let them continue all year and next year. We need to ensure better transparency for passengers so that they also know what is going on with performance. We need better communication and to know such things as the level of compensation that is paid out, as well as make sure that it is easy for passengers to get it. When possible, compensation should be automated.
I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) that although it feels as though nothing could be worse than it is now, if the franchise for the suburban lines goes to Transport for London, we must not see passengers further out lose out as a result. Finally, I would like the Minister to provide reassurance that work is being done on how to improve the service further out, given the population growth. We know that London Bridge is being refurbished —trains from my constituency do not go into London Bridge—but there is no confidence that that will be a magical improvement, so what is going to be done further out to improve the performance, reliability, speed and quality of the services for my constituents?
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on securing the debate.
I have just one train line running through my constituency—two tracks, three stations, one train line. What could go wrong? Well, Southeastern could go wrong, that’s what. I was elected in 2010 and have used the train line since then, but I also used it a commuter for 20 years beforehand. Before Southeastern, we had Connex, which was terrible. We thought Southeastern would be better, but we were wrong.
I have a real appreciation, as many in this Chamber do, of the frustration of standing on a platform in the certain knowledge of the uncertainty of the train service—wondering whether the train will arrive on time, or at all; whether we will be told what is happening; whether the train will be full when it gets there; whether, once it sets off from the station, it will actually arrive at the other end at the specified time. Commuters have a feeling of being resigned to the inevitable about Southeastern. If they have to be at a meeting a certain time, they will aim for two trains earlier than the one they actually need to get, because they know that the timetable may, on many mornings, be a work of fiction.
During my first five years as an MP, complaints were of the kind that one would expect—they were about unreliability, late-running trains, overpriced tickets, a lack of information—and that discontent was borne out in the passenger focus surveys. There was therefore both some surprise and horror when Southeastern was re-awarded the franchise. At that point, we were told that things were going to improve and that, for instance, there would be more seats. At a meeting that the Railways Minister held in one of the Committee Rooms in Parliament about 18 months ago, I remember pressing Southeastern about those extra seats. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham also doing that, and at that point, Southeastern admitted that there were extra seats but that they were on off-peak services—so absolutely no use whatsoever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham raised a point about compensation. Every time I contact Southeastern, it says, “Don’t forget to remind your constituent that they can claim compensation.” Compensation is fair enough, but people want a service; they want what they have paid for. If someone keeps going to a shop to buy something that breaks every time, despite the shop saying it will give them their money back, they will stop going there. What happens on Southeastern is that people do not have an alternative and that has a knock-on effect on the clogging up of the A2. People are taking to their cars because they cannot rely on the train service.
It is interesting that since saying that people should claim compensation, Southeastern seems to have changed its compensation for season ticket holders. It wrote to a constituent, a season ticket holder, setting out the formula it is now using: it calculates the number of journeys it thinks the season ticket holder will make in a year and divides the price by that. Southeastern is part of Govia, which divides the season ticket price by 464 journeys, but Southeastern decided to divide it by 546 journeys, which is less generous. The compensation is not generous anyway, but Southeastern’s calculation makes it even less generous. I believe Southeastern has decided to do that because it is getting more complaints and more claims for compensation. Will the Minister look at that to see why Southeastern is using a different formula from the rest of the group?
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) referred to 12-car trains, saying that Woolwich Dockyard is a problem. I have been pressing for 12-car trains on the Greenwich line for a long time, knowing that Southeastern cannot run them on that line because of the Woolwich Dockyard problem, but there is an answer: selective door opening. When I originally wrote to Southeastern, it said there were 12-car trains on my line. I wrote back saying, “No, there aren’t, but what time do they run? I want to get one tomorrow.” Southeastern came back to me saying, “Oh no, actually they’re not on your line,” and then blamed the council, saying that it could not run the trains because the council had complained about Woolwich Dockyard. So it was saying, “We can’t run the 12-car trains that we don’t actually have.” Its responses were nonsense and typical of its disrespect.
Eventually, Southeastern said that if it gets 12-car trains it will not run them on my service even if there is no problem at Woolwich Dockyard, because although my line is bad, the Sidcup line is worse and that line will get those trains. It then wrote to me and other hon. Members asking us to lobby the Minister to help it to get 12-car trains. That just added insult to injury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said that it appears that Southeastern has given up, but in case it ever diversifies into bus operation, I want to illustrate a point. Currently, it is running a rail replacement bus service at weekends from Abbey Wood station because work is going on every weekend on the new Crossrail. I had an email from a constituent who had recently used the service. The journey from Abbey Wood to Woolwich Arsenal, which should take five minutes, took an hour. The bus did not arrive until 20 minutes after the scheduled time; it took my constituent to the next station, Plumstead, where they waited 30 minutes for a train, which was cancelled with no information announced. My constituent then gave up and took a bus to Woolwich. When I wrote to Southeastern to complain, its response was:
“I am sorry for the excessive delay on the replacement bus service. To be honest, I have no explanation as it would have been quicker to walk!”
That is no way to run a railway. Southeastern has given up. Complaints about its service are becoming more frequent than the services themselves.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for securing this debate. I know how important the train service is for his constituents. It is also important for my constituents, who live only 26 miles from London. Since being elected to the House, I have had to commute to London for the first time in 15 years. Hon. Members will have heard me say that I do not see an improvement in the delays to the service. It has been an eye-opening to see what my constituents face daily.
In Rochester, we have been lucky to have the wonderful investment of a £20-million station. It was much needed and long anticipated, and we are grateful for it. Sadly, however, the shine has been taken of it because since it opened in December, train users have seen the service decline rapidly, with delays, cancelled trains and lack of communication. One reason why my constituents were so excited about the new station was the hope of more train services, using the longer platforms and the potential for increased capacity. Sadly, that has been completely overshadowed by the events since Christmas.
People were hoping that the new station and the longer platforms would enable longer trains to be run, so that they could have seats on the train in the morning—like people in Eltham, my constituents in Rochester struggle with capacity. In north Kent, particularly the Medway towns, we are being expected to deliver high housing numbers over the next 15 years. In Medway we are looking at a 30,000 increase in 15 to 20 years. Southeastern agrees that it has had a 40% increase in capacity and use of its services. My plea for the future is about how we will tackle the growth in the south-east. The reality is that Kent and south London are extremely important in providing a workforce in the City of London and Greater London. How can we deliver that and keep up with the demand?
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) referred to the A2, which is another significant issue in my constituency. It is true that people are getting in their cars to come to London rather than using the trains. Frankly, my constituents deserve a hell of a lot more. I need to get to London on time, as do my constituents, but we also need to get home on time. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said about the quality of people’s lives. People who work in London accept that they may be travelling for one or two hours to get to work, but they want to be able to get home, live their life, spend time with their children and do things other than work. Unfortunately, the service that Southeastern provides does not allow my constituents to have that extra time. I live only 26 miles from London and people further down the line in Kent will be experiencing even more challenging limits on their time.
I welcome this debate and want to hear from the Minister what plans there are for coping with demand and the increasing need for more capacity and longer trains. We want to know whether Southeastern will get its act together once and for all, so that we have a better spring and summer on the train service.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. Clive Efford is forgoing his wind-up, so the Front-Bench winding-up speeches will start at 10.40. Two Members are trying to catch my eye, and perhaps they will divide the time between themselves.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your sagacious direction, Mr Evans. I start with an apology for having to leave before the end of the debate because I have an appointment later this morning at King’s College hospital and it has already been postponed twice. You will understand, Mr Evans, that when one gets to my stage in life, one does not take liberties with one’s cardiologist. I look forward to reading what the Minister says and I congratulate her on taking the problems not just of Southeastern, but of Southern and the whole debacle of the London Bridge redevelopment seriously for quite a time.
In my constituency there are seven stations served by Southeastern, and a further six on the borders are used by large numbers of my constituents—all the stations are in zone 4—so it is obvious how critical the Southeastern service is to the life of my community, not just economically but socially. The cost of an annual rail ticket between Penge East and Victoria starts at £1,280, and a zones 1 to 4 annual travelcard costs £1,860. Southeastern even has the effrontery to offer a first-class season ticket between Penge East and Victoria for a staggering £1,920. That is spoiled only by the fact that none of the trains that run between Penge East and Victoria actually has first-class carriages. The ever-increasing cost of rail tickets is a different debate entirely, but it is surely not unreasonable for the constituents of all hon. Members present—I join in the general wailing and gnashing of teeth about the service provided by Southeastern—to expect a reasonable service, particularly in light of the amount of money that they pay.
I wish that Southeastern would put as much effort into running the trains on time as it does into providing excuses for why it does not. I complained on behalf of a constituent about the service from Charing Cross to Hayes and received the following reply:
“The causes have been primarily infrastructure-related, i.e. track, signal, and power supply failure, fatalities”—
I personally would not call that infrastructure—
“the collapse of the Dover Sea Wall”—
other hon. Members have mentioned that—
“landslips on the Bexleyheath and Hastings lines, fatalities at Hildenborough and Dover”—
I think those were probably passengers who gave up waiting for a train—
“a broken rail in the Crayford area and only this morning, a track…failure at Gravesend. While these may seem unrelated to the Hayes line the complexity of our network means that disruption on one line inevitably has a knock on impact on another.”
Well, I would have great difficulty explaining to people at Kent House and in Sydenham and Penge why the collapse of the Dover sea wall means that they cannot get into London. That is just ludicrous.
Recently, Southeastern even blamed service delays on “strong sunshine”—my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has already mentioned this—making it difficult for drivers to read signals. Of course, the rail industry once came up with the wrong kind of snow; now, the wrong kind of sunshine affects people’s service. It is, as many other hon. Members have said, a scandalous position.
I could quote at length what other constituents have said, because I get complaints about the service three or four times a week, if not every day. One constituent said:
“I genuinely cannot remember the last time the trains were running even remotely close to the timetable. This is hugely frustrating when juggling commuting and childcare commitments. It is not fair on my employer that my time of arrival at work is largely in the lap of the gods and not fair on my son when I have to work late to make up for my late arrival.
As you are aware, it is an expensive business commuting into London and it is absolutely unacceptable to receive such a shoddy service at such a high price.”
And so say nearly all the constituents who have contacted me on this matter. Another said:
“I board at Kent House on the 8.59 or 9.14 trains most working days and the trains have been late by 5-15 minutes every day this year, and some are cancelled on a semi-regular basis. As the services are costing more and more every year, the level of service…is not adequate.”
Indeed, it is going backwards. That is the experience of my constituents and those of most other hon. Members who have spoken. It is completely intolerable. As others have said, if Southeastern cannot run the trains, it should hand the franchise over to someone who can.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for securing this very important debate. This is the first time that I have spoken in a Westminster Hall debate, and my reasons for speaking in this one will not surprise anyone. Lewisham, one of the stations that has been mentioned quite a lot during the debate, is in my constituency and I am bombarded by constituents contacting me because of the numerous problems that many hon. Members have mentioned.
I intended to start by shining a light on some of Southeastern’s recent performance issues, but the problem with shining any light on Southeastern is that that is one of the excuses that is quite often used by the company. It has said that congestion in Lewisham is down to strong sunlight, so along with snowy days, wet days and windy days, Southeastern apparently cannot function on sunny days. As well as the poor performance that everyone has mentioned, it has poor excuses.
I have spoken to hundreds of people about their dissatisfaction with the state of the trains in south-east London. In my constituency, Southeastern operates six of the 10 stations. I will outline some of the concerns expressed to me. Oliver wrote to me in January, telling me that each time he used Southeastern trains in a two-week period he experienced monumental delays and cancellations, and often no explanation was given at all. Of course, there is a complaints procedure, but when my constituent Jos attempted to complain twice, after being dropped off in the middle of the night at a platform that she did not recognise because Southeastern had failed to announce that the train was no longer scheduled to arrive at her station, she received no response. One constituent even told me that she had considered moving because she was so miserable with the state of travel in Lewisham, Deptford.
I could go on—we all receive hundreds of emails and Twitter messages, and people come and speak to us every time we travel to work, about the poor customer service—but I will not. What I will say is that the current franchise system combines the worst of both worlds. It is definitely not a public system, but neither is it wholly privatised: the taxpayer still subsidises the operating systems to the tune of millions of pounds every year. Astoundingly, it costs the taxpayer much more since the railways were privatised than it did under a public system. Commuters are constantly met with rising fares and diminishing service, while Southeastern’s profits continue to soar.
Last month, Lewisham, Deptford welcomed the news that Transport for London will be taking over Southeastern routes and stations throughout south-east London in 2018. That is a great start, but as many hon. Members have said, if Southeastern cannot run the service properly now, perhaps it should lose the franchise sooner.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) not just on initiating the debate, but on the way he—and other hon. Members—brought to life the daily frustrations of travelling life. We all recognise the frustrations that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have expressed. I can vividly see passengers jamming their feet in doors in protest and frustration; I see that on my own train line. It should not have to be that way. And we can all recognise the collective groan when an aged train that should be 12 carriages long and turns out to be four carriages long comes into the station. We have heard from everyone who has spoken about some of the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, very sensibly, pointed to the Which? passenger survey. He is right to say that it gives an accurate representation of where we are at with Southeastern trains. Of course, he and many other hon. Members raised the issue of compensation. The Minister has spoken about that in the past, and I am sure she will say more about it this morning, but it is clear that it does not work for most people and needs to be strengthened. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham also made a very important point about the decline in reliability since Christmas. Again, that point was echoed by many other hon. Members.
I also recognised very much the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). He talked about overcrowding, reliability and some of the communication issues. Again, those points were echoed by other hon. Members. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to some of the user groups, which play such an important role on all our lines. Those people beaver away, amassing the information that we need to hold these companies to account. Another important point that he and other hon. Members made is that there is a real sense that passengers have lost confidence in the company, which raises some important questions about what happens next.
I thank the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who is not here now, for uniting the Chamber in a vote of dissatisfaction with the current services. There are things on which we disagree, but I suspect we all agree on this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) painted a vivid picture. A number of us probably got up earlier than we needed to this morning in order to get the train to arrive here on time. It should not be that way. People should not have to get a train that is two trains earlier than one that should get them to their destination on time just to ensure they reach their appointment. She eloquently outlined people’s frustrations.
The hon. Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) raised important points about the challenges ahead in a growth region. This is not just about getting the problem sorted out for now, but about how we face the challenges of the future.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) eloquently detailed some of the complaints and problems with which we are all familiar.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham made some opening points about customer satisfaction, which dropped dramatically for the Southeastern franchise from 83% in autumn 2011 to 75% in autumn 2015. A quarter of Southeastern’s passengers are dissatisfied with the level of service provision. Among commuters, that statistic is even starker, with satisfaction plummeting from 77% to just 68%.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge mentioned some of the excuses that are proffered. Well, sometimes Southeastern’s public relations department is even more bizarre. Some hon. Members may remember an article in Metro, in which one of Southeastern’s people said that the real problem was that people did not really want to go to work or pay their fares in the first place, and that people were grumpy because the service
“takes people somewhere they don’t want to be with money they don’t want to pay.”
That is not great, is it? Southeastern went even further, claiming that if the surveys had been carried out on a “sunny summer’s day”, the satisfaction ratings would be better because passengers would be more “upbeat”. From what we have heard this morning, passengers would need to be very upbeat to ignore some of the crammed compartments and torn up timetables.
Although it is a pretty tough job spinning for Southeastern, let us look at the collection of companies. All the franchises are part of Govia and therefore part of Go-Ahead, which reported that profits in its rail business had shot up by 30.5% to £25.7 million in the year to June. That is astonishing considering what we have heard today. The operator is reporting rocketing profits and is managing to hand out some pretty big bonuses at a time when services are declining. Rising profits should mean rising service standards, not appalling delays, overcrowding and severe disruption. Punctuality was only 87.7% over the past year, with 37% of those delays attributable to Southeastern, not Network Rail. The failures come despite Southeastern receiving £32.5 million in subsidy last year.
We have heard about some other problems, including the Dover sea wall and the landslips to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham made reference. I would welcome information from the Minister about whether any warnings have been raised with Network Rail about the condition of the areas in both cases and an update on the progress Network Rail has made in compiling its long-awaited register of the condition of its assets.
The Department for Transport gave the incumbent operator of the Southeastern franchise a four-year contract extension without running a wider tendering competition. The franchise began in April 2006 and was due to end in October 2014, but the Government gave the operator a direct award to continue running the service until June 2018.
Matthew Pennycook
The Government not only re-awarded the contract, but gave an additional £70 million to Southeastern to improve performance standards. All the promises and commitments that came with that have not materialised, as far as I am aware.
Daniel Zeichner
That is a very good point, to which I am just coming. The extension until June 2018 was awarded even though Southeastern had some of the lowest passenger satisfaction scores in the country and even though the Minister knew that passengers on the route have not always received the service they deserve. The Government essentially gave Go-Ahead the go-ahead for four more years of misery for passengers. The direct award was nothing more than a reward for failure.
At the time, the Minister assured us:
“We have also totally changed the contract terms to make sure they deliver on their promises.”
Has Southeastern delivered on its promises? Looking at the most recent passenger satisfaction survey, it seems that the answer is no, and I think, having listened to their comments, that hon. Members would rather agree with that.
We have heard quite a bit about the length of trains. My own experience is with the Cambridge line, on which, under the Labour Government, trains were extended from eight to 12 carriages, which made a huge difference. When it happens, it really does help. Again, I will quote the Minister, who said just over a month ago:
“I am determined to review the business case for running the additional, bigger 12-car trains on the metro service in particular. I give the House an undertaking that there will be a decision on that in the next couple of months.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 523.]
I would be grateful if the Minister would let us know whether that decision has been reached and, if so, what decision has been made.
Another question that hon. Members raised is what will happen when the extended franchise comes to an end in June 2018. In January this year, the Government and the Mayor of London announced that they would consult on transferring London’s suburban rail services to Transport for London, which many hon. Members have welcomed this morning. Devolving routes in some areas of the capital has been transformative; indeed, significant investment is going into recently devolved routes to Enfield town, Chingford and Cheshunt.
We would welcome the devolution of control to ensure that passengers are put before profits, so that they get the level of service they desperately need and deserve. However, despite the headlines, that devolution is still a mere proposal. There has been no firm commitment from the Department. In 2012, the current Mayor of London attempted to get Southeastern services devolved and he failed. Despite what Government Members might say, there is no reason to believe that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) would enjoy any more success if he were successful in his mayoral campaign. The devolution of control might well be a calculated pre-mayoral election announcement, unaccompanied by any meaningful action to improve commuters’ journeys. It would be helpful if the Minister provided further information about the consultation and her Department’s consideration of the proposals.
Finally, with the Shaw report published later this month, it seems worth asking the Minister whether she really believes, after the disastrous precedent set by Railtrack, that breaking up and privatising Network Rail would improve services for passengers. Do we really want to return to the dark days of Railtrack? Passengers on Southeastern trains deserve better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am sorry that I have not been left with an enormous amount of time. I will endeavour to answer all the questions raised, but if I do not get to them, I promise that I will write to hon. Members.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on securing the debate. He is an assiduous campaigner for better rail services, and we work best on this when we work together. Many right hon. and hon. Members have attended and spoken, including the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) and the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), both of whom were rendered mute by high office, but made a point of coming.
I want to step through a couple of the tactical questions and then go through some of the broader issues. The landslip and Southeastern’s response to it was mentioned several times. Heavy and persistent rainfall closed the Bexleyheath line between 12 and 15 January. A recovery plan was put in place by Southeastern and Network Rail. My officials stayed in close contact with the operator and Network Rail to ensure that those actions were carried out. I was disappointed to hear today some examples of partially-sighted passengers and others not given the care and support they needed. There was a plan to offer taxis to passengers. I will certainly ensure that the company receives those comments and responds to them.
Dover sea wall was mentioned. Of course, major issues happen. I have been asked whether Network Rail’s surveying and early warning system is adequate for those sorts of events. I went to see the Lamington viaduct, which washed out and broke the west coast main line for a period of weeks. I am assured that the surveying programme is proactive, comprehensive and appropriate. Extreme weather events are clearly becoming even more common, and there is an important question to be asked, in particular about the level of funding that is baked into the current period—which, again, I am assured is appropriate. I do not have an answer on whether early warnings were received, but I will ask and respond to the hon. Member for Eltham on that point.
The reason why we are all here is that, despite such one-off events, performance on these services is not where it should be, not where I want it to be, not where the operator wants it to be, and certainly not where anyone in this room, or the customers they represent, wants it to be. I would gently point out that if Members look at the overall performance schedule, it has dropped from 91% of trains arriving on time last January, according to the public performance measure—I want to say a word about that, because I think the hon. Gentleman and I agree on whether it is adequate—to 88.3%, which means that almost nine out of 10 trains are getting to their destination on time. It is important to bear in mind that sometimes the vociferous complaints that we hear are a response because a particular line runs very ineffectively, which is important, or because there are certain passengers who are just extremely unhappy and now have the ability to let us know.
As hon. Members know, after the election I set up the south-east quadrant taskforce, which brought together, for the first time, Network Rail, Govia Thameslink Railway, Southeastern, Transport Focus and my officials. I continue to chair that group, and the next meeting is tomorrow. The group is an attempt to sweep away all this blame game and accounting for who is wrong. Our constituents do not care who is responsible for a delay; they just want to make sure that they are going to get to work, or home to pick up their kids from day care, on time. It is complete nonsense that for generations that was not the case. By the way, this has nothing to do with who owns the railway: it has always been the case that the railway has argued among itself about whether the engineers or the passenger-facing bits are correct. Frankly, I am sick to death of that conversation. If there is a problem, I want all aspects of the industry to work together to sort it out, which is very much the message that we give through the taskforce. Indeed, things are starting to improve, which I will mention.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) mentioned suicides. Let us not trivialise that. Somebody takes their life every 30 hours on the railways. It is a tragedy, it causes disruption to millions of people and it is absolutely ghastly for the train staff and train drivers. It is something that we must work to solve.
The taskforce is determined to sort out performance. I send a message to the industry that public performance measures, or right-time measures, that ignore the number of people whose lives are affected by disruption are irrelevant. There is no point comparing the PPM on a very lightly used franchise—say, the one north of the border—with the PPM on franchises running around London and the south-east. We are talking about the busiest parts of the railway. Tens of millions of people are travelling every year, and a delay for one train on those lines creates misery for millions, which is why I am working with the industry to try to ensure that these measures that we all like to throw about actually reflect the human experience of what is happening on the tracks.
We talk a lot about one of the fundamental causes of delay, which is the work at London Bridge. That is a real problem. It is a multi-million pound unpicking of a very tangled set of lines, some of which date back to the 1930s, and the rebuilding of what will be a fabulous station. That work is clearly putting immense pressure on the operators, and I am sympathetic. We are trying to encourage them to work much more closely with the Thameslink team to ensure that the works proceed without too much disruption. Let me flag for MPs in the room that, before the station opens, there will be a significant timetable rejigging for Southeastern customers in the summer. I want to ensure that everyone is aware and that that communication work goes out as effectively as possible.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) asked the important question of what “good” looks like once all this disruption works through the system. What is the level of performance at which we can hold up our hands and say that it is a high-performing railway? Many activities have already happened. New maintenance regimes have been put in place, and new bunches of relief drivers are stationed around the system to ensure that if a misplaced train arises, drivers can quickly get to it.
Right-time starts from stations and depots to ensure that trains leave on time are fundamental. A question has been raised several times about whether Southeastern is meeting its franchise commitments. When the franchise was originally let under the last Labour Government, and re-let under a direct award a couple of years ago, franchising tended to focus on processes and inputs. If an operator said, “Yes—tick—I have deep-cleaned my stations. Yes—tick—I have hired an additional number of drivers. Yes—tick—I have made sure that all my front-line staff have better information systems,” the Department, under all colours of Administration, would say that that franchise holder was doing its job. That is not good enough. Franchising should be about delivering outcomes, delivering performance and delivering customer satisfaction.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and I occasionally share a train ride, and it is much better than he likes to say, but there we are. The new franchise for the Greater Anglia area is focused on contractual outcomes on performance and customer satisfaction. It is not just, “Have you done the following things?” but “Have you actually delivered the results that we want you to deliver?”
The important issue of customer care and handling has been raised several times. Indeed, customer satisfaction is not quite at its bottom, but I admit that it is almost there, at 75%, which is actually the highest score in the last two years. The score for the autumn period is improving, but customer care on this franchise has to improve. Many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out that there are still gaps. Staff have to be outward-looking, and they have to be thinking of people on the trains as customers who have a choice—they are not just units who need to be moved to and from their lives. Indeed, Southeastern is committed to pushing out more information to the frontline and upgrading customer information systems. All those obligations that were in the franchise agreement have been completed on or ahead of schedule.
Southeastern has also invested almost £5 million in improving stations. The scores on satisfaction with stations have gone up, which is important to see. Southeastern is liable under the terms of its franchise agreement if it does not meet its national rail passenger survey scores. At the moment, it is still meeting those scores, but it is liable for penalties if they should drop further. I also want to put into the mix the question of what we expect during major works, such as the London Bridge project. We will face that problem with HS2, and we have to make it absolutely clear what outcomes we expect from operators at those times of disruption.
I will not delight Members and say that we have made a decision on the rolling stock. I am bound and determined to get new rolling stock on the line by the end of this year. New rolling stock will add capacity, particularly on the very crowded metro lines. I do not need to bore Members with details about the departmental investment cases, but all of them are being worked through. As Members might imagine, I am pushing hard to ensure that I can make a positive announcement for capacity both later this year and again in 2018, because I understand the point and its relevance. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). We must make sure we know where we can use the trains effectively so that people can walk forward, with selective door-opening if necessary. [Interruption.] Oh dear: that’s thunder.
The other point that has been raised is about compensation. We have among the most generous compensation schemes in Europe. People travelling from the constituency of the hon. Member for Eltham have a journey time of only 36 minutes to Victoria, so compensation is not particularly relevant because it kicks in at 30 minutes, which is not terribly helpful. It is a manifesto commitment of my Government, reiterated by the Chancellor, to introduce in a relatively short time—I certainly want to do it this year—a compensation commitment on which the clock starts ticking at 15 minutes. Several Members alluded to the c2c scheme, which is now providing compensation per minute of delay after the first two minutes. That is possible because of the Government’s investment in the south-east flexible ticketing programme. That is being rolled out to Southeastern, which will have the capability to offer compensation for these minutes of delay when it goes live on the SEFT system with smartcard season ticket holders by the end of the year.
Fare increases have been mentioned. I am proud to represent a Government who have capped fares at RPI plus 0% not just for this year but for the whole of this Parliament, which on average is worth more than £400 to every season ticket holder in the country.
I have very little time left. I will write, in particular on the point that the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) raised about changes to compensation, because I am not aware of that and I want to investigate. None of us is satisfied with the performance of the franchise. The question is whether anyone out there could run it better. My considered judgment is no. This is difficult, and there are huge engineering works taking place on the line. The company and Network Rail are absolutely committed to driving up performance, to the extent that Network Rail’s operating director is now devoting 40% of his time to sorting out the performance problems on these very congested lines.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Student Volunteering
(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 Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered student volunteering.
It is good to have you in charge of this debate, Mr Evans.
As last week was the 15th year of National Student Volunteering Week, I am taking the opportunity in this debate to celebrate student volunteering, to thank the many student volunteers in my constituency and to support action by universities and the Government to build on the enormous contribution that student volunteering makes. I thank both the network development director at Student Hubs, Francis Wright, and the public affairs officer at the National Union of Students, Alexander Lee, for their very helpful briefings.
The value of student volunteering does not often get the credit or attention that it deserves. I suppose that is because good news is never as newsworthy as bad news. So we can bet that any problems that wayward student behaviour causes will get a lot more attention than the many thousands of hours of voluntary commitment by students who are helping to make our communities better places.
In Oxford, our local community benefits from hundreds of dedicated student volunteers from Oxford and Oxford Brookes Universities, who give time every week to help to meet a wide range of local needs. The local student hub currently supports over 30 student-led volunteering projects in Oxford that benefit local residents. There are 281 Schools Plus volunteers tutoring in 12 local primary and secondary schools across some 26 projects, helping pupil achievement in areas ranging from literacy to music to GCSE science. In many cases, of course, the student volunteers are only a few years older than those they are helping, and there is a particularly powerful mentoring effect when student volunteers who themselves come from disadvantaged backgrounds help to raise the aspirations and attainment of pupils in poorer communities. Another project, Branch Up, does that by running activity days for children referred by social services. It supports 30 young people, many of whom come from Oxford’s more deprived areas, through projects that tackle educational and extracurricular disadvantage.
Intergenerational support features too, through LinkAges, a student-led project that connects students with older people to tackle social isolation. LinkAges has a particularly strong relationship with Isis House, a care home in Florence Park, where around 20 volunteers help to run activity sessions and away-days. A number of LinkAges befrienders also support older people who live alone. And East Oxford Community Centre is home to Project Soup, a student-led initiative that runs micro-fundraising dinners for community projects by selling soup and bread that would otherwise have gone to waste. So far, over £1,800 has been raised there for local projects.
For a number of years, I have been in touch with KEEN—Kids Enjoy Exercise Now—whereby students from Oxford Brookes and Oxford Universities put on games and other activities for children and young people with special needs, providing real enjoyment for all participants and welcome respite for parents who know that their children are socialising and having fun with others of a similar age. I was privileged to present the medals at the KEEN Olympics sports day last summer, and to see so much joy on the faces of all those taking part was really heart-warming.
That project brings home an absolutely crucial aspect of student volunteering, namely that there is a huge three-way benefit. Of course, those being helped benefit from the activities that the students organise; the students themselves benefit enormously from the experience, in ways that will help their personal development and often their careers; and the local community and society gains from the social value and benefits of the voluntary activity.
I must also praise students’ voluntary political involvement. I go out nearly every Sunday morning, calling round the constituency, talking with residents and taking up their concerns, and listening to their views on politics and much else. Along with other local activists and councillors, in term-time I am always joined by students from Oxford University Labour Club or the Brookes Union Labour society. Getting up relatively early on a Sunday morning to help with community representation is not perhaps a stereotypical student activity, but the thousands of hours that those student volunteers have put in has enriched our politics locally, and I am sure the same is true of student volunteers for other political parties, those working on important campaigns such as the forthcoming referendum, and those involved in the enormous amount of work that goes into campaigning on issues such as equal rights, the environment and homelessness. Students care, and many of them channel that caring into purposeful action that makes a difference.
The experience of student volunteering that we are fortunate to benefit from in Oxford is replicated in various ways in every university and college. Across the country, there is many a food bank, many a faith group community initiative and many a charity that would founder without its student volunteers. As the NUS briefing for this debate points out, last week alone—the volunteering week—more than 16,000 students got involved in over 500 events across 125 colleges and universities. One way or another, more than 600,000 students will be involved in student societies, clubs and volunteering projects this year. That student contribution is a huge win-win resource for our society and merits support at every opportunity.
Student hubs provide invaluable facilities and networking. It must be more than 10 years ago now that those who came up with the student hubs idea—another Oxford first—were sitting in my advice surgery and explaining the difference that it could make in facilitating and expanding student volunteering, and how right they were. This is a success story, and one that commands support across the political spectrum. It is important that everything possible is done to sustain and build on that support.
I am timing my remarks to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) to speak on points coming out of the all-party group on students, but there are some points that I will highlight to the Minister and others.
The first is to stress what a resource student volunteering is for the role of universities and colleges in our communities. Every bit of investment that they can make in helping to provide student hubs, and in supporting funding and sponsorship for student volunteering, reflects well on the role of higher education in the wider community, as well as benefiting students’ education. Therefore, volunteering should be seen not as an add-on but as a core part of universities’ mission.
The training and support that is available for those supervising student societies, volunteering and student projects is very much part of that process. It is important that the Government do all they can to support volunteering, for example by the Cabinet Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills making it clear to universities that investing in the provision of high-quality social action opportunities for their students is something that is expected of them.
Within four years, 35% of university applicants will be National Citizen Service graduates, so we need to consider how NCS can help to build bridges to the universities that have invested in community volunteering, for example by showcasing the best examples of such volunteering to people who are thinking of applying to university. We need to create a culture in the UK where community service is valued—it is much more valued in the US—as an indicator of future leadership potential and is taken into account in evaluating applications to university. We also need to ensure, through the support of universities and student hubs for volunteering, that the benefits of volunteering do not disproportionately fall to those who are better off at university because their time is less constrained by the need to do part-time work. The benefits should be accessible and available for everyone. Student volunteering does so much for our society. Let us thank all the students and all those helping them who make that possible. Let us do everything we can together to make it an even greater success in the future, because everybody benefits.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) for providing me with the opportunity to add to his comments. I echo them, because the landscape that he paints of volunteering opportunities and activity in Oxford is replicated in every town and city across the country that benefits from universities and colleges.
I speak as the Member with the highest number of students of any UK constituency. As of last week, I am also the representative of the student volunteer of the year, and I congratulate Liam Rodgers. He is a creative writing student at Sheffield Hallam University. He is the leader and founder of UpScribe, a project that helps homeless people to express themselves through creative writing, increasing their confidence and ability to work with others, as well as reintegrating them into society. That project not only demonstrates the breadth of student volunteering, but the creativity and innovation that students bring alongside traditional volunteering opportunities. Liam’s is a great good news story, and there are plenty like it across the country.
We should put on record our thanks, as my right hon. Friend has, to the almost one in three students who volunteer while they are at university and to the growing numbers in further education colleges who do so, too. Last Tuesday, to mark Student Volunteering Week we held a meeting of the all-party group on students, which I chair. That meeting was not only to celebrate that activity, but to look at the challenges.
As my right hon. Friend said, volunteering is a win-win. Local communities benefit hugely from the thousands of students involved in every town and city where they are engaged, and that is the main motivator for students. Four in five students responding to an NUS survey said that it was why they got involved in volunteering, but they also benefit, developing skills and improving their employability. We all know that in a competitive graduate market employers are increasingly looking for graduates-plus. Employers do not simply want a good degree, but experience and skills, too, and volunteering helps facilitate that. It is therefore doubly important that volunteering opportunities are available to everyone.
A joint report by Universities UK and the National Union of Students found that not having enough time is cited by students as the main reason why they are unable to volunteer or to volunteer as much as they would wish. The main pressure on time, apart from academic work, is paid employment. Research shows that 77% of students work to help fund their studies. The pressure to earn while studying is increasing with the cost of university. I worry that that pressure will increase further for the poorest students with the abolition of maintenance grants. If we limit volunteering to those who do not have to take paid employment to see themselves through university, we tilt the playing field—it is already tilted towards those with advantages—even further in their favour and in the wrong direction. We would be giving extra opportunities to those who already have an edge in the graduate market, while those from lower income families risk falling further behind. I am keen to get the Minister’s views on how we can ensure that volunteering opportunities are available to all, so that in future Student Volunteering Weeks we can celebrate moving from the basis of strength that we have now to having even more people engaged with an even greater impact on our communities.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, I think for the first time. May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) on securing today’s debate? This is an important topic, as he laid out in his comments. I know what a strong advocate he is for student social action. In some ways, how could he be anything else, representing the constituency that he does? Also, many years ago he went to Reading School in my constituency. It is a top-performing academic school, but it is keen on the wider individual and ensuring that young people give something back to society for the great education they get at that school. I understand where his core values come from on this particular subject.
I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s commitment to encouraging young people to get involved in all forms of social action. I will take “student” in its wider context, and not just talk about university students, who we have heard a lot about in the comments so far. Youth social action is close to my heart, so I am delighted to be the Minister leading on this agenda for the Government. We want to see all young people having the opportunity to take part in social action and to go on to form what should be a lifelong habit—it should not just be for a few years when they are young; the habit should be embedded so that all through their life they are always giving something back to their communities. One of the ways that we as the Government want to achieve that is through the National Citizen Service. More than 200,000 young people have taken part in NCS since 2011, and the NCS Trust estimates that graduates have delivered more than 8 million hours of volunteering time already. Consecutive independent evaluations demonstrate that NCS delivers more confident, capable and engaged young people, and it continues to represent impressive value for money.
I want to expand the opportunity to every young person who wants a place on an NCS scheme, making it a rite of passage that young people look forward to. In January, the Prime Minister set out his ambition that 60% of all 16-year-olds participate in NCS by 2021. To achieve that, we have committed more than £1 billion of funding over the next four years to grow the programme to 360,000 places by 2020. NCS will become the largest programme of its kind in Europe. I am particularly proud of that, and all the young people who have been and will be involved should be, too.
We have already seen NCS graduates go on to achieve great things in continuing their social action journey. One such NCS graduate is now part of the Points of Light team at the Cabinet Office. He works as part of a small team identifying outstanding volunteers right across the country to receive recognition directly from the Prime Minister for their work. NCS graduates from across the UK are celebrating all things social action this Saturday. It is a chance for them to showcase their social action activity and to promote the causes close to their hearts. NCS is all about giving young people the tools, opportunities and respect to achieve amazing things in their community, so the NCS social action day will be a fantastic way to do that.
NCS is not the limit of our ambition in government. We believe in creating a social action journey pre and post-NCS. We want to encourage all forms of youth social action, and the Government are committed to continuing our support of Step Up to Serve’s #iwill campaign. That campaign is supported by all parties in the House of Commons. It aims to increase the number of 10 to 20-year-olds taking part in youth social action by 50% by 2020, because we recognise the importance of social action for young people. We know that participation not only develops vital skills for life and work, but helps young people to feel connected to the communities in which they live. Participation in NCS and Step Up to Serve helps to break down social barriers and adds to social cohesion in our communities. It enables young people to meet and work with others from different walks of life.
As part of the Government’s continued commitment to all forms of youth social action, the Cabinet Office has invested more than £1 million to grow youth social action opportunities across England, which has been generously matched by the Pears Foundation and the UK Community Foundations. The national fund is working with nine successful applicants to increase opportunities for young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or rural areas. The local fund concentrates on optimising opportunities in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge: areas previously identified as having low youth social action participation rates.
We have also seen other fantastic results through funding social action. Through our uniformed youth social action fund, Youth United has created 20,000 new places for young people to join groups in disadvantaged communities across the UK, and 90% of the units created are still running with no further funding from Government, which is a great example of sustainability and a really fantastic result, so I congratulate Youth United on doing that.
Part of the fund is to support innovative approaches to reaching the most hard-to-reach young people in our communities. The Boys Brigade has struggled to recruit adult volunteers in some of its more rural locations owing to the timings of meetings, but what is so great about this story is how recruiting NCS graduates as volunteers is really showing how this very natural social action journey can fit together between NCS and other organisations. This part of the uniformed fund is also enabling the Scout Association to be more accessible to young people with disabilities; the Woodcraft Folk to meet refugees and other young people with English as a second language; and the Volunteer Police Cadets to run a pilot programme working with young offenders.
Reports will be published later this year in relation to the fund, and I am sure everyone here will agree that this will be an exciting piece of research that we can learn from. It really shows the diverse range of social action projects that young people get involved in, and the Government are committed to supporting that journey.
Mr Andrew Smith
I agree with what the Minister is saying in this happily consensual debate. Has he had or will he have discussions with the Minister for Universities and Science, his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), to ensure that every opportunity is taken to make the most of the potential to link together the broader social action initiatives he is describing with the opportunities that can be available through universities and colleges, which need to be encouraged by those universities?
Mr Wilson
Yes, of course. I am in discussions with not only the Minister responsible for higher education but with the Minister responsible for apprenticeships, the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), as well. We want to ensure that we have joined-up Government and that the social action journey continues through life and gives every young person the opportunity to take part in things that they want to do in their local community. I have seen at first hand the great work being done by young volunteers in a variety of sectors and communities. I was particularly impressed to see the huge contribution that young people can make in the health and social care sector, for example. I visited the Royal Free young volunteers programme, where young volunteers supported patients, staff and visitors primarily in two roles: as satellite navigation guides around the hospital and as mealtime experience volunteers. The young people I spoke to aspired to have a wide impact in society, beyond the hospital, to inspire positive engagement throughout their communities. It was clear to see that those volunteers brought energy, enthusiasm and heart to everybody they interacted with.
The latest youth social action survey demonstrated that 42% of young people between the age of 10 and 20 years old have participated in meaningful social action in the past year. This demonstrates that young people have a real appetite to play their part. In January this year we published the outcome of a highly significant new study conducted by the behavioural insights team, which demonstrated a link between social action and improved educational attainment as well as enhanced employability skills, which is something that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned in his comments. The study indicated that people who engaged in volunteering were up to three times more likely to get invited for a job interview than people who did not volunteer.
The Government are committed to supporting young people, giving them the power and opportunity to play a real part in their community and to build important skills for life. I am keen that the habit remains through adult life. The Government also support young people to have a say in the community and voice their opinions on issues that are important to them. Some of this work is delivered through a grant to the British Youth Council for youth voice activities. Last year, as I am sure hon. Members are aware, the BYC’s Make Your Mark ballot, the largest annual ballot of young people’s views, culminated in a record-breaking 970,000 votes cast towards key topics for young people to focus on. That is a remarkable achievement that would not have been possible without all those young people actively getting involved. That sum of nearly 1 million votes means that 16.5% of the nation’s 11 to 18-year-olds had their say. That is a great demonstration of young people’s interest, and a great vehicle for the collective voice of young people to be heard.
It is therefore even more important that we listen to the voice of young people who can bring a fresh perspective and innovative ideas to many of the challenges that we face. At the annual sitting of BYC’s Youth Parliament in November, I was impressed by the level of commitment and enthusiasm shown by the members of the Youth Parliament who want to make a positive change in society. It was truly impressive to watch young people debating important issues such as mental health and the living wage. Colleagues in Parliament have frequently expressed support for the UK Youth Parliament. As hon. Members may be aware, in June 2015 Parliament resolved that the UKYP should continue to use the House of Commons Chamber for its annual debate for the remainder of the current parliamentary term until 2020. In light of that, I decided to offer BYC a grant agreement to support it to deliver its youth voice activities for the remainder of the Parliament.
Last week we celebrated, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East said, the 15th anniversary of Student Volunteering Week. Delivered in partnership between student hubs, the National Union of Students and the student volunteering network, the week is used to discuss the challenges and opportunities in student volunteering. I had the pleasure of being involved in the celebration event where Liam Rodgers, a constituent of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, was presented with the student volunteer of the year award. As the hon. Gentleman said, Liam founded UpScribe, a writing project for homeless people to express themselves through creative writing. Liam led on the creation and publication of a book created by people who participated in the project, many of whom are now published writers. It was impressive to hear that Liam had donated a third of his £1,000 award to a fellow shortlisted student of the year volunteer. This demonstrated his commitment to the widest elements of youth social action.
During Student Volunteering Week, I also visited one of the successful organisations under the national youth social action fund. Through the fund, an organisation called Whole Education plans to use its network of schools across the country to work with students who implement their own community projects and embed the culture of social action in their schools. I spent time with a small group of young volunteers who were developing an online platform for students to share their youth-led social action ideas, as well as designing a virtual social action badge, which I look forward to seeing later this week. I want to encourage more universities to harness the power and positive outcomes of student volunteering. I am keen to explore how to engage more vice-chancellors to support the growth of student volunteering, and I will speak to my colleague in higher education to see how we can do that. There is a great deal to do if we are to make social action a part of life for 10 to 20-year-olds under this Government, but I am firmly committed to making that a reality.
I will end by thanking all the individuals and organisations that support youth social action for their commitment and dedication. I also extend my thanks again to the right hon. Member for Oxford East for initiating this debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Egypt: British Support
(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
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered British support for stability in Egypt.
It is a great honour to introduce this debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I visited Egypt many times before I came to this place: I went there as a student and in 2008 I spent a month in Cairo trying to learn Arabic—very unsuccessfully, I should add. I have also had the honour of visiting Egypt many times on parliamentary delegations with the Conservative Middle East Council and others.
This is a timely and important debate, for a number of reasons. First, we need only open the newspaper every day or look online to see the absolute turmoil that much of the region has plunged into. I am also conscious of the fact that a lot of the turmoil and confusion that has crept into our world has emerged very recently. I recall travelling to Egypt for the first time in 1998. There had been a terrorist outrage in Luxor in 1997, a terrible incident in which dozens of people were killed, but when I visited—obviously this was all before 9/11—there was a real optimism about the place. It was a broadly secular country: people could walk freely, there was no real pressure for women to dress in any particular way and alcohol was served freely. It was a country looking towards a bright future.
It is not my place to go through the recent history of the region today, but as a consequence of what has happened there in the past 15 years since the events of 9/11, and everything that has been going on since the Arab spring, the need for stability in Egypt and its role in the world have increased. The mood there has been a lot more pessimistic, and its people and Government have gone through a very difficult past five years.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The Egyptian people and nation are central to the middle east. Does he agree that it is crucial for the future wellbeing of the middle east and the wider region that Egypt restores itself to a position of centrality and stability in order to spread that across the region?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted very pithily—more pithily than I did—the key fact that Egypt is absolutely central to the Arab world. We need only look at the numbers: something like 90 million people—well over a third of the Arabic-speaking people across the globe—live in Egypt. In Al-Azhar University, Egypt has one of the key centres of Islamic scholarship and learning. Egyptian media dominate the Arabic-speaking world. The Egyptian Arabic dialect is widely understood across the Arab world.
Egypt is also important for historic reasons. In the 20th century we need only look at the careers of Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. These were huge figures in the Arab world who played a role in securing stability in this important region. As the hon. Gentleman said, Egypt is therefore absolutely central to any form of stability or solution to the ongoing problems in the middle east. I called for this debate because we need to recognise, in this Parliament, throughout the country and throughout the international community, that stability in Egypt is crucial and we should all be investing heavily in it.
Although Egypt has attained a modicum of stability, people will recognise that the degree of stability that has been reached is not complete. There are still dangers. We saw an appalling terrorist outrage in November, when a Russian civilian aircraft was blown up in the sky with huge loss of life. There are threats still lurking in the Egyptian scene. Although there is a terrorist threat, it must be admitted that the Egyptian Government have taken some very severe steps. As friends of Egypt—as people who are interested, in every sense of the word, in maintaining stability in and supporting Egypt—it is our job to ask probing questions about its Government’s treatment of political prisoners and people who have expressed doubts about or even opposition to the regime. It is our job to ensure that the Egyptian Government are held to the highest standards with respect to human rights and individual freedoms. I do not deny that at all.
Many people in Britain view some developments in Egypt with considerable concern. I need only mention the Italian University of Cambridge PhD student who was found killed, clearly murdered, in Cairo six weeks ago. We do not know what happened and we have not heard any definitive answers from the regime. The Egyptian Government cannot simply be given a blank cheque by their friends and allies in the west. I regard myself as a friend of Egypt—broadly speaking, Britain and the British Government are friends of Egypt—but being a friend does not mean that we blindly accept everything that the Egyptian Government do, nor does it mean that we should acquiesce or turn a blind eye to the outrages or abuses we have identified.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Recently, I was delighted to be able to join my hon. Friend, and other Members present, on an extremely informative visit to Cairo. He is making an important point about how the Egyptian Government operate, which is of concern to our constituents. Nevertheless, does he agree that for the Egyptian people—indeed, for the whole region—there is one thing of huge importance that probably dwarfs everything else: stability? He mentioned that Egypt is a very large country, with a population of 90 million. It has a huge history, unlike many other Arab countries. It has a big contribution to make, so stability will be an important factor, and we should be supporting the Egyptian Government in that pursuit.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. At the centre of this issue is the fact that we have to deal with a very fine balancing act in Egypt, which is why this debate is so important. On the one hand, we have a fragile situation in the region and a country that has gone through enormous economic pressure and two destabilising revolutions in four years. On the other hand, it is a country that is crucial to the stability of the region. There is the need for order and stability, but there is also a Government who have a mixed record, if I can put it that way, on guaranteeing human rights and the pressure and force they have applied in domestic situations.
We in Parliament have to appreciate that very fine balance, because frankly we do not understand the immense pressures that the Egyptian people have gone through. One startling fact is that in 1952 the population of Egypt was 20 million. I have spoken to Cairenes who remember those times, and they remember a completely different Egypt. Cities such as Cairo and Alexandria were much smaller, yet much more spacious. In many ways they were much more luxurious than they are today. Over the past 60 years, the Egyptian population has more than quadrupled. That demographic pressure constitutes Egypt’s greatest challenge.
As can be imagined, in a country where more than 50% of people are under the age of 25, there needs to be employment, a degree of economic progress and a Government who recognise the ambitions and aspirations of their young people. In that context, government can be very difficult. Against that backdrop of a growing population and economic pressure, there is also the rise of, for want of a better phrase, political Islam and the complications that radical Islamic thinking—takfiri thinking, as it is called—bring to the political mix.
While I am talking about the demographics in Egypt, we also should remember that there are nearly 10 million Copts—Egyptian Christians who have been there for 2,000 years, since the birth of Christianity—who comprise something like 10% of Egypt’s population. They will point out that they have been there for longer than Islam has existed as a religion, so they have a deep historic connection to and experience of the country of their forefathers.
I have had the privilege of visiting Egypt a number of times in the last six years. In that time, I have seen four or five different Heads of State and three different Governments, and I have had the privilege of speaking to several Ministers. In the brief period after the Muslim Brotherhood took over and were running the country, it was clear to me there was huge pressure on the Copts. Churches were being burned and Coptic people were being attacked. No community breathed a greater sigh of relief when the Muslim Brotherhood was removed, as it were, from government than the Copts. No group of people was happier to see a restoration, as they would see it, of some kind of order under the form of General Sisi.
For us in the west looking at that development, we can quibble about the details and say that, like Mubarak, Sisi is some kind of military dictator, but that is to overlook a lot of the changes that have happened in Egypt. We had the privilege of meeting Egyptian parliamentarians, who treated us and hosted us incredibly generously and respectfully in their Parliament. They were very keen to adopt the best parliamentary practices from Britain and apply them to their new Parliament, which met less than two months ago. They are absolutely committed to building a form of parliamentary democracy. That process might take a long time. Egypt’s parliamentary democracy is certainly not perfectly formed, but few parliamentary democracies can claim to be perfect and fully formed. We have just been considering how the House of Lords operates in our country. Parliament has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, yet we are still evolving and trying to look at the nature of the two Houses and how they co-ordinate with each other.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although Egypt has had its unique problems since the Arab spring—or the Arab winter, as it is called in some quarters—the fact that the Egyptian Government are forcefully putting forward a democratic mandate is a good thing for the region?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I think my hon. Friend is right. People will dispute the extent to which Egypt is a full, participatory democracy—people can have different views—but it is clearly going in the right direction. We can discuss where along the road we think it is, but the movement is positive. Many of the elections that were held in Mubarak’s time were far more tightly controlled than the parliamentary election we have just witnessed in Egypt. The nature of political life in Egypt is evolving. That goes to the core of what I am saying. Stability—some degree of law and order in the streets—is absolutely essential. Anecdotally, we were told that at the time of the Muslim Brotherhood there was practically a self-imposed curfew in Cairo. Now people are beginning to go out—they feel a bit more secure and safer—and a civic society is growing.
I have talked briefly about political developments and aspirations, about structures and about Parliaments, but we need to think about a basic economic question, which I alluded to when I was talking about the population increase. Demographic pressures and the economy are absolutely crucial. Anyone who knows anything about Egypt will know that, broadly, about 20% of its economy is based on tourism. One thing that we can do directly to help Egypt to build up its economy is to help tourism. Our delegation learned that the suspension of British flights to Sharm el-Sheikh was a matter of grave concern to Egyptian businessmen and the Egyptian Government. I recommend that the Government look seriously at that—I know we are doing that and are inching towards lifting the ban and stopping the suspension of flights. If that were to happen, sooner rather than later, it would be an immense boon to Egyptian tourism and its economy.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I apologise for intervening again—I am not seeking to catch your eye, Mr Pritchard, as I have to entertain 101 Logistic Brigade from Aldershot shortly, so I will not be able to make a speech—but I want to pick up on this important point my hon. Friend has made. Does he agree that the British Government have moved heaven and earth to do whatever they can to ensure that we can resume flights to Sharm el-Sheikh, and that the Egyptians have come a long way towards meeting the British authorities’ safety requirements? It is imperative that both sides work even harder so we can resume flights in time for the summer season.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Something like 1 million British tourists go to Egypt every year, under normal circumstances. We have tried extremely hard to help in that regard—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and others have spoken eloquently and tried hard behind the scenes—but this is a matter of critical importance. Egypt has a deficit of something like 10% or 12% of GDP, which is very high. It has a very high unemployment rate—it is something like 12%—and the demographic pressures that I have talked about are not getting any easier. The economy is critical to the stability of Egypt and the wider region. That is something that we can do directly to help Egypt.
I would not want to anticipate or prejudge any of the security considerations, because they are obviously paramount, but I want to put on the table the fact that directly supporting Egyptian tourism will have a knock-on effect. It will help the Egyptian economy and provide employment. That in itself will defuse a lot of the tension, militate against the attractions of extremism and prevent young people from going down that route.
In conclusion, I think we have a good and helpful relationship with Egypt. I would not want to inflate his ego too much, but we have a Minister responsible for the region who has a deep knowledge of and commitment to, not only Egypt, but other countries in the middle east—I know, because I have travelled with him. Broadly, our relationship with the Egyptian Government is very strong. I would suggest that we closely consider the issue of flights. Economic support will obviously be important in years to come. Lastly, while we have done many good things and built up a good relationship, there is some way to go. This is an evolving relationship and there will be challenges ahead, but I hope that in those challenges Egypt can find a solid and steadfast friend in Britain, the British Government and our people.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for securing this debate. Instability in Egypt and across many areas in the middle east is a grave concern. It is one of the major global challenges faced by this generation, and such is the intricacy of the challenge that one fears that it may well be faced by generations to come as well. I am here because I and my constituents in Cambridge care deeply about the human rights abuses and political volatility that the people of Egypt are facing. I am also here because I want to tell the House about Giulio Regeni, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned and whose appalling murder has drawn international condemnation.
Giulio was a 28-year-old Italian PhD student at Girton College in the University of Cambridge. He spoke five languages—Italian, English, Spanish, Arabic, and German—and was researching labour unrest and independent trade unions as a visiting scholar at the American University in Cairo. He went missing on 25 January, which was the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the 2011 uprising against former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He was on his way to meet a friend at a restaurant near Tahrir Square—known, of course, as the symbolic centre of the Egyptian revolution—but nine days later his body was found in a ditch between Cairo and Alexandria.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have seen the details in the news, so I will not avoid being explicit about the horrors of Giulio’s death. In the past few days, we have learned from the post-mortem that earlier accounts have been corroborated: Giulio had been stabbed, burned with cigarettes, bruised, beaten and mutilated; he had suffered broken ribs and a brain haemorrhage, and his nails had been ripped out. The Italian Interior Minister described his ordeal as “inhuman, animal-like” violence, and the senior prosecutor said that Giulio probably suffered a “slow death”, but initially there were conflicting reports about the cause of his death. Early reports about signs of torture were contradicted by claims that a traffic accident was to blame. People were rightly suspicious about these explanations—right to think it unlikely that a traffic accident somehow systematically ripped out his fingernails.
Giulio’s family and friends need answers. Italy wants answers. I suggest that we all need answers, not only because this case was brutal and because it was the first case that we know about of a foreign academic researcher working in Cairo being subjected to such sadism, but because it was not an isolated incident for the people of Egypt. According to human rights organisations, the torture that it appears Giulio suffered is a matter of routine for those imprisoned by state security organisations in Egypt. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Egyptian citizens are seeing
“repression on a scale unprecedented in Egypt’s modern history”.
According to the Al-Nadeem Centre for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence, almost 500 people have died at the hands of Egypt’s security forces and over 600 people were tortured while in detention in 2015. According to The Guardian, hundreds of Egyptians are being “disappeared”, tortured and held outside of judicial oversight.
What can one do against such brutal barbarism? Why on earth did this happen to Giulio? Some have speculated that the politically sensitive research that he was undertaking on labour unions in Egypt was a factor, or perhaps his extracurricular journalism for the il manifesto communist newspaper in Italy meant he was targeted. We do not know, but that there are countries in this world where people are imprisoned, tortured, or murdered for their academic pursuits, their writing, or their political views is the sad truth.
We recognise that the situation in Egypt is complex and challenging, and like my hon. Friends I desperately want to see the region underpinned by stability and democracy. I hope the Minister will enlighten us about recent representations that the Government have made to the Egyptian Government regarding human rights issues. In a written answer on 11 February, the Government said:
“We are aware of the tragic death of Mr Regini, an Italian national, following his disappearance on 25 January and pass our condolences to his friends and family at this difficult time. We support Italian and Egyptian efforts to investigate into the circumstances of his death.”
I would welcome some clarification of what can only be described as “diplomatic language”. In what way are the British Government supporting the Italian and Egyptian investigative efforts?
I conclude by quoting from the letter signed by more than 4,600 academics from around the globe. They wrote of Giulio:
“Our community has been enriched by his presence. We are diminished by the loss of a young researcher whose work tackled questions that are vitally important to our understanding of contemporary Egyptian society.
They continued:
“We…call on the Egyptian authorities to cooperate with an independent and impartial investigation into all instances of forced disappearances, cases of torture and deaths in detention during January and February this year, alongside investigations by criminal prosecutors into Giulio’s death, in order that those responsible for these crimes can be identified and brought to justice.”
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I too have been able to visit Egypt to inform myself about what has been and is now going on. I associate myself with and echo the concerns hon. Members have expressed about the tragic fate of Giulio Regeni and other human rights abuses, which I will discuss further later in my speech. Recent events in Egypt have fundamentally disturbed us and have challenged us to think about the dynamics underlying the Arab spring, posing basic questions to western politicians which have been played out in Egypt on a global stage. In many ways, events in Egypt fundamentally challenge our sometimes lazy notions of democracy and challenge us to consider the realities of the balance and tensions between freedoms and the merits of stability.
We should not underestimate the uniqueness of Egypt’s position. Look at its neighbours, which also experienced the Arab spring tidal wave in 2011. In Syria, horrific, blood-stained chaos is suckling the diabolical death culture of Daesh. It is a humanitarian catastrophe and a centre of global tensions, the effects of which include not only untold numbers of inhumane acts of cruelty against individuals, children, and homosexuals, but the destabilisation of the whole of Europe. Look at Yemen, sunk beneath a flood of war, and Iraq, struggling against the onslaught of Daesh. Libya is now a failed state and an arena of warring militias and jihadists. These are Egypt’s neighbours and it is important to consider Egypt’s actions and challenges in that context.
By contrast, look at Egypt. There was an uprising in 2011 and Mubarak was removed in February. In June 2012, Egypt held elections and Morsi was elected, but then the direction that Morsi began taking dramatically alarmed the country, including many of those who had thought that the Muslim Brotherhood would prove genuinely moderate. Between January and the summer of 2013 public protest reached boiling point, and on 30 June Morsi was removed. In May 2014, after some constitutional preparations and changes, General el-Sisi, a Muslim who was appointed by Morsi, was elected as president to serve as a Muslim who wants a secular state. At the time, the west described that as undemocratic, but this is one of those times when we should step back, take a reality check, and consider our priorities and where our judgment should lie.
A close friend of mine who is half-Egyptian and whose Copt family lives in Alexandria and Cairo reported to me the rapidly growing mortal fear felt by Copts, as members of their congregation began to disappear and churches were attacked. The culture of fear under Morsi escalated quickly and alarmingly. Egyptian Muslims have anecdotally told me that they also became frightened when the Muslim Brotherhood appeared not to be what it originally said on the tin. They became alarmed at Morsi’s attempt to make himself constitutionally unchallengeable. We can all think of a great leader—perhaps not so great—in the last century whose first challenge to Europe was to make himself constitutionally unchallengeable. In that growing fear and alarm about oppression, Egypt simply rejected the path to political Islam that it was being hurled down with brute force.
We have to remember that democracy was never going to happen in Egypt as it does in Tunbridge Wells. To think otherwise is to demonstrate the naivety that the west sometimes displays when it tries to impose on other countries standards and structures that took our countries several hundred years of bloody war to establish, and then becomes judgmental. When travelling around Egypt, I looked for the results of the process that Britain called undemocratic. I was lucky enough to be at the opening of the new Suez canal expansion, which was achieved in less than a year—necessary, but far from sufficient in aiding the Egyptian economy to stabilise and thrive. This is anecdotal, but in the city of Cairo I observed nothing but tangible relief that at last someone had taken control of a country people had felt was teetering over into oblivion. To my surprise, that feeling was expressed by conservative Muslims as well. That fundamental sense of relief was echoed by mothers, students and taxi drivers—yes, there was apprehension for the future, but there was fundamental relief that Egypt was finally under some kind of control. Ironically, although not democratically elected as the west might have preferred, Sisi, as far as we can tell, enjoys a popularity that many elected leaders in this country would do a lot for.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Sisi was democratically elected. Although some of the returns were impressive—something like 90% or 95% of the vote—there was a democratic process.
Charlotte Leslie
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that. There was of course a democratic process after considerable institutional and constitutional preparations were made for the transition, which, given the context, was quite remarkable, particularly compared with the fates of other countries surrounding Egypt. I was referring to the fact that many people did not want Morsi to be removed; they wanted him to hang on and then elections to take place. From what I saw of people living in Egypt—I admit this is only anecdotal—the idea that elections would take place in a free and fair way in that culture of fear was optimistic at best.
I do not want anyone to think that I am describing a rosy situation—it is far from rosy. The younger population is very concerned and, interestingly enough, their concerns chime with the concerns about human rights abuses and clampdowns that we have heard in the Chamber today—concerns about the imprisonment of journalists and the appalling, tragic and diabolical treatment of the Italian Cambridge student. I do not have to take up valuable time in expressing how abominable that case is, because other hon. Members have done so far better than I could. Interestingly, students and young people said that it was not only abominable, but politically unnecessary, because Sisi enjoyed sufficient popularity not to need to clamp down in that heavy-handed way.
That brings me on to my next point: that such human rights abuses are not only fundamentally morally wrong, but dangerous for the country itself. Human rights abuses foster the kind of radicalism, extremism and takfiri thinking that Egypt is fundamentally pitched against. In looking at radicals such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, we see the detrimental effect that prison torture plays in radicalising budding or existing extremists. If we think that we have an incentive to crush extremism, look at Egypt’s neighbours and see just how urgent the crushing of that extremist takfiri mentality is to them. How can Egypt become more successful in eradicating extremism? My impression is that, in common with many countries that are facing modernisation and a perhaps already modernised younger generation, Egypt is experiencing the counterintuitive paradox of needing to grip less tightly in order to be stronger.
We had the great privilege and interesting experience of meeting many Members of the nascent Parliament. I remember the confusion in this Parliament—a great institution—when in 2010, for the first time in a long time, we had a coalition Government. Everyone ran around not quite knowing what was going on. Imagine a completely new Parliament, a set of 200 or so pieces of legislation that had to be reviewed in a short space of time and the establishment of much of the constitution—something we take for granted in this country. That is a Parliament that is really trying to get off the ground, so it would seem bizarre for Britain, which has such an established Parliament, not to take a lead in helping and nurturing that fledgling to fly and to become the solid institution that is so important to form a politically stable Egypt. The country is a brave and resilient one, trying to form a bastion of democracy amid a sea of hostility.
There are also deep concerns about Egypt’s economy. With oil prices falling, support from the Gulf is waning, and that is worrying. To create a healthier economy, Sisi has to perform a difficult balancing act by weaning the country off subsidies, while avoiding the public protests that would emerge to destabilise Egypt were prices of bread on the street to go up. Tourism accounts for 10% to 15% of the Egyptian economy—about 1% to 5% is from Britain. If we want Egypt to remain stable and to flourish, we need Sharm el-Sheikh flights to resume as soon as possible. The work there must be concluded quickly. In assessing the security of Sharm el-Sheikh flights, obviously we must put the safety of our citizens first, but we should also consider the security implications of not resuming the flights. An awful lot of Egyptian people depend on tourism. If they are left jobless and feeling spurned by Britain, we have to consider where they might turn for a livelihood and security. We do not want them to turn to extremism.
The stakes are high. If Egypt crumbles economically and social disorder breaks out, the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe that we fear now and this summer will increase dramatically. The exchange rate of the Egyptian currency is artificially high and floating the currency on the open market is a frighteningly risky prospect for the country. It would be a leap of faith, and in making any leap everyone needs to feel surrounded by friends who will help. Furthermore, if we do not help Egypt to modernise, social disorder will feed and nurture Daesh and other pro-Islamic State players.
We can do so much. We have a rich experience of democracy, so we can help Egypt to form a Parliament and functioning state institutions. Education is also vital. The broken-down education system in Egypt needs almost a complete revamp. That, too, is something in which Britain has expertise and experience. As we all know, education and forging a future for young people is one of our key weapons in preventing young people from falling prey to the predatory nature of extremist and takfiri thinkers. If we are not proactive in forming such a relationship with Egypt and in helping it to become the democratic nation that it is trying hard to be—not perfectly, but it is trying—other nations will step into that gap. I am not sure that we especially want Russia to in and to be seen as the primary friend of Egypt. We need allies in the region, so we need to support them.
When looking at the human rights abuses, which are appalling, we need to ensure that we are measuring carefully what it is that we are concerned about. If we are concerned about human beings and their suffering, the metric of our judgments and actions on human rights abuses must be the number of people enduring such suffering. It can be easy to focus blame on the locus of responsibility, whether a Government or an institution, but much less easy to blame a failed state, because there is no one there to blame. We are, however, concerned about human beings and their lives, so we need to look at where the most human rights abuses take place: in a stable state or in a failed state.
Kwasi Kwarteng
With respect to human rights abuses, it is important to mention Giulio Regeni, a research student who I believe lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I followed the case and it seems difficult to apportion blame directly, because not only are the Government responsible for some abuses, but there are rogue elements within the security apparatus. One thing that we have not mentioned is the fact that the Egyptian military is broadly involved in ramifying branches of economic and social life, business and so on. When people talk about the Egyptian Government, the notion is complicated.
Charlotte Leslie
My hon. Friend makes the case most eloquently. The more that we can help the Egyptian Government to stabilise institutionally and to have a better grip on its institutions, the more we can help the security services to operate in a way that we in the west like to see our security services operate. The more the security service and its activities can be aligned with the state, the more stable the country will be.
To go back to the point I was making, just because it is hard to allocate blame in countries such as Syria and Libya and to solve the problem that is causing untold numbers of human rights abuses, we should not let the fact such abuses are taking place under a Government deter us from tackling them where they are happening on an abominable scale. It is easy for us to put our own moral virtue, in liking to blame someone, ahead of our concern for human welfare.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) made a powerful case for the need for stability in Egypt. We owe it to the Egyptian people, to the British people, who are concerned about stability and the migrant process, to Europe and to everyone everywhere, whether moderate Muslims, Christians or of any religion, not to sit and condemn and carp at a country that is certainly not doing everything well and that certainly gives rise to much concern, but to help it to obliterate the things that cause us concern—to help one of the lone islands of stability attempting democracy that has not succumbed to instability and an Islamic takfiri alarming state to thrive and flourish. That is in the interests of all of us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for giving us a chance to speak on this matter. It does not seem like it is three years since we had a similar debate in Westminster Hall. Incidentally, I think the leader of the Labour party was part of that debate. Remarkably, we seemed to agree across the Chamber on all the human rights and equalities issues, and I do not believe it will be any different today, because the Members here are of the same mind.
For decades, Egypt has not only been a beacon of hope in the middle east and north Africa for freedom and liberty in comparison with its neighbours, but done well economically. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) in her last few words referred to democracy in Egypt. Co-operation with NATO and the west has been priceless; we saw how much that meant when Egypt suffered from instability following what was called the Arab spring.
It is pleasing to see the shadow Minister and the Minister in their places. I look forward to both of their contributions and I am quite sure that the Minister will be as positive as ever. He has the ability to understand what we are thinking and put that in his answers.
At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) was appointed the economic envoy to Egypt—the Minister will know that. We are pleased that someone from this House has direct input and can carry the banner, so to speak, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—in Northern Ireland we are fond of carrying banners. That is fantastic news and we fully support him.
Charlotte Leslie
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the very appointment of a trade envoy to Egypt—our current envoy is excellent—illustrates that the Government really want to engage? Does he also agree that in John Casson and Nasser Kamel we have two good ambassadors who are extremely good at engaging with their respective populations and acting together?
Jim Shannon
I can only agree with the hon. Lady on all those points. I will mention one of the ambassadors later on in my speech, because lots of good things have been done.
I want to look at the debate in a positive fashion, but I also want to highlight some issues. While we recognise the small and giant steps that Egypt has taken, we must look at some of the changes needed. I want to talk about them in a respectful fashion, which is important.
Relationships, which are proving fruitful, still exist as we seek to foster peace in the region. They are invaluable in the fight against Daesh. Egypt needs to be a lead nation in any coalition against Islamic State. We may not hear about it often, but Egypt’s borders are crossed on many occasions from Libya, where Daesh groups operate in units. They have attacked and in their activities a number of Egyptian soldiers and civilians have been murdered. They are on the front line, so let us give them the support they need. When the Minister responds, he will probably be able to tell us a wee bit more about what we are doing. I know it is not his remit, but perhaps he can say how we can support them militarily. It is important that we do so and that we are seen to do so.
We need to do everything we can to support one of our strongest allies in the region in its drive to return to stability so that it can not only use its military and diplomatic capabilities, but reignite as the beacon of hope that once shone in north Africa and the middle east. For all its problems, Egypt has shown itself to be a bulwark against the instability and chaos that plagues other countries not too far away in the middle east and the Arab world. Instability has swept over them like a tidal wave, but it has not to the same extent in Egypt.
Egypt is strong, Egypt is our friend, and it makes economic, political and strategic sense to ensure that it remains our friend to provide the stability necessary in the middle east, now and in the years and decades to come. Notably, al-Sisi’s top security concern is the presence of Daesh in the Sinai peninsula. Earlier I mentioned the attacks from Daesh groups in Libya, which illustrate that. That is dangerous from a human point of view, a regional and global security point of view and an economic point of view. It offers a new launch pad for the abhorrent Daesh disturbingly close to our other ally in the region, the state of Israel.
It should be remembered—no one in the Chamber will have any doubts about it—that Israel has been Egypt’s ally from the beginning of biblical times. In the past the relationships were strong, even with the Arab and the Jew. We still have that working relationship between Egypt and Israel, which is perhaps unique in the middle east, not only on economic things, but to combat Daesh and take on the threat of Palestinian terrorists. Egypt sees the threat, Israel sees the threat, and they work together to ensure that the tunnels that have been used by some, coming from Egypt towards Israel and the Palestinians, are closed off. We must recognise that Egypt plays a part in that.
Members should be aware that that is being taken seriously by our diplomats in the region. The hon. Lady referred to our ambassador in Egypt, John Casson, who last week addressed an Egyptian Ministry of Tourism conference in Cairo. All Members who have spoken so far have rightly referred to the importance of tourism, which we need to reignite. We need to provide security first of all. Ambassador Casson stressed the importance of the points I have raised: the economic, diplomatic, strategic, and defence and security ties.
Charlotte Leslie
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in becoming one of the first people on a flight back to Sharm el-Sheikh? I am asking him on holiday.
Jim Shannon
As a married man, I have to be careful. [Laughter.] I am very loyal and dutiful to my wife, who I love, but if it was in a purely platonic way, I think that would be okay.
The ambassador praised the efforts of Egypt to re-emerge from the years of instability she suffered following the Arab spring and the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. Three years ago I had a chance to visit Egypt with the all-party parliamentary group on Egypt. I had always wanted to visit Egypt—I had a purpose. The APPG met President el-Sisi in his palace, so I had a chance to put to him issues about freedom of religious belief, which are important for me and for my Christian brothers and sisters in Egypt, and I was impressed by his response to the questions put—I could not say otherwise. He showed his commitment to the change he wanted to see and the society he wanted in Egypt. I was impressed by that. He also won the election shortly after that, and let us be quite clear: a democratic process was carried out and he was overwhelmingly elected. The people were not happy with the Muslim Brotherhood—although they were not happy with Mubarak either—but I believe that President al-Sisi delivered a democratic process to them.
On our visit the members of the all-party group had a chance to raise some issues. We met a pastor in a church in Cairo, called Pastor Sami. People often say to me, when I mention him, “Is he from Belfast?” I say, “No, he is not; he is from Cairo, and he is an Egyptian.” Seven thousand people attend that evangelical church in Cairo, but you will never hear about that, Mr Pritchard. It is one of those things that come out only from visits to Egypt or from having direct contact with places in the area. Pastor Sami wanted the changes. I expressed to him my concerns about people who had converted from Islam to Christianity, and a block being put on them, and asked about the level of direct representation at every level of the democratic process—not just with respect to President el-Sisi. There was a meeting about a month ago of the all-party group on religion or belief, which I chair, and we met some people from Egypt. There are a number of Christian MPs in Parliament in Egypt, taking part in the democratic process and making changes, as they should.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Would the hon. Gentleman suggest how, if at all, what he describes is an improvement on the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Jim Shannon
First, it is an improvement because people can pursue their religious beliefs without fear in Egypt today. There are still attacks, but there is a change, and I have seen that. When I visited I had a chance to meet the Grand Mufti. It was an opportunity to meet someone of Muslim beliefs at a high level and to ask him his personal opinion on the new Egypt that we would see shortly afterwards. He made a commitment to ensure that people would have the opportunity to express their religious belief without repercussions. I want that to come from the top, and to go all the way down; and I think there are levels further down that it has not yet reached. There are steps to be taken—small ones and big ones.
The Islamic groups that have infiltrated into Egypt are more violent. In the Sinai region, radical groups seem to operate with impunity. Christians are punished and pushed outside the proper legal process. Coptic Christians, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne mentioned, have been expelled from their villages. There is persecution and discrimination, and one example I know of concerns a schoolgirl whose name is Marina. She is 10 and the youngest of six children. Her mum and dad are illiterate, but they send all the children to school. As a Christian, she has to sit at the back of the class on her own, isolated and perhaps marginalised. It is such levels that must be reached if there is to be real change for people in Egypt. I know that everyone in the Chamber wants that to happen as well. Christian women have been kidnapped and raped, and involved in relationships that they find abhorrent. Christian buildings and churches have not been repaired in some cases, but in fairness there has been some change on that. There has been rebuilding of churches, and protection, in Cairo.
The response to the saddening and shocking events at Sharm el-Sheikh is an example of exactly what is needed on every level. Britain, Germany and Russia, to name a few of the nations in question, have taken steps to co-operate further with the Egyptian Government to ensure that Sharm el-Sheikh can be a model for security at airports and show strength and resilience in the face of terror and cowardice. There is a young girl who works in my office as my researcher, and when she got married she had her honeymoon in Sharm el-Sheikh. At the time there was not any bother, and she recommended it for a holiday—a honeymoon is of course a bit better as a holiday—and an opportunity to enjoy some special time.
There is great development potential in the Nile delta. On our visit we hoped to see some of that development. With the water source there is agriculture and agribusiness, which create jobs and enable food to be grown, moving Egypt, with its massive population, towards some sort of self-sufficiency, if that is possible. Among various issues there has been talk of Ethiopia building a dam, which might cause some problems. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to respond on that, or give us an idea of where things are in that process, but Egypt can develop and create jobs. The resurgence of gas and oil and access to Egypt’s vast energy resources are of interest to everyone, and helping an ally to develop those resources is much better than relying on enemies for energy, as the west too often finds itself doing. BP and British Gas have found Egypt to be an ideal business partner recently, and utilising our relationship with Egypt to further voluntary co-operation and trade across the region will open up the prospect of prosperity to millions of oppressed people—a vast population who need employment. We should remember that they need prosperity as well as the peace we all continue to work for.
I have outlined an array of issues on Egypt, including the concerns of the all-party group. I have mentioned the role of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley as an envoy to Egypt, and there is already an apparatus that we can build on to ensure support from the United Kingdom. I hope that will help to ensure that what was once a towering pillar of stability and a beacon of hope in the Arab world can come roaring back to its former self and sit again at the top table of global powers and economies, alongside the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for securing it. I thank him for the brief background he gave us, from his own experience, reminding us what a great country Egypt is, and what a much greater country it can become. It is, I think, the 16th biggest country in the world, and often we do not appreciate that. Not too long ago different cultures and traditions, and people of different faiths and none, could mix comfortably, respecting one another’s traditions but with the freedom to carry on their own. Clearly, that is what we want Egypt to return to.
We must recognise that Egypt belongs to the Egyptians, so in our dealings with them we must be careful. By all means we should encourage them to move towards the kind of society that we think the citizens are entitled to; by all means we should use diplomatic and other ties to try to develop the interests of the United Kingdom in relation to Egypt; but at all times we should respect the rights of Egypt’s citizens to choose a Government and un-choose them should they see fit.
I think we can see optimistic signs even in the behaviour of President Sisi. A lot of what he has done recently is completely unacceptable and contrary to any interpretation of international human rights law; that must be made clear to him. However, he has the potential to change course. There has been some sign of a small but welcome softening of attitude on law and order, for example. It is unacceptable that hundreds of people can be taken and sentenced to death almost at one time. Some of those death sentences have been commuted, and that is something we should encourage. President Sisi received military command training in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, so he knows where the boundaries lie between using military means to ensure security and abusing military power to oppress either his own people or anyone else. He knows what is acceptable and what is not. I think there is something there that we can work with, which perhaps we do not have with some of the other dictators or semi-dictators in the region.
The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) rightly reminded us what can happen if someone who is elected democratically stops being democratic and is allowed to get away with that.
The persecution of religious minorities, to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred, is something that we cannot afford to ignore. We should remember that the persecution of Christians is an anti-Islamic action in exactly the same way as anti-Semitic or Islamophobic persecution is an anti-Christian action. All of those faiths teach fundamentally that we are all free to take our own decisions and that we will all be held to account for those decisions at some point. We should not allow our concern for persecuted Christian minorities in Egypt or anywhere else to develop into a claim that it is somehow Islamic actions or an Islamic group of people that are responsible for those crimes and that persecution.
We need to ensure that when we talk about stability, we do not mean the stability there has been in some countries in the past, where stability meant military dictatorship. Often, if there is a brutal military dictatorship, there is stability, but it comes at the cost of the violation of the human rights of tens of millions of people. That, again, is not acceptable.
The influence that the United Kingdom can exert in Egypt comes from our shared history, since a lot of the history of Egypt has been closely bound up with that of the United Kingdom, and from the fact that the United Kingdom is now the single biggest foreign investor in Egypt. There is an avenue for the Government to encourage businesses that are investing in Egypt to invest in things that will help Egypt, not hinder it, and in projects that will support the development of a democratic society rather than simply prop up a discredited regime.
The Government must also continue to remind the Egyptian authorities that the United Kingdom has—or should have—a policy of not investing in Governments whose human rights record is poor and not showing signs of improvement. The carrot of investment would then be there, but the stick—the threat of that investment being stopped—could be used, not to ensure that Egypt develops into the country we say it should, but to allow and encourage Egypt to develop the fundamental principles that cross international borders such as human rights, the rule of law, respect for democracy and respect for diversity in society.
I believe there is a good possibility that if we play it right, we can help Egypt to develop back into the kind of society that will be in the best interests of its 90 million citizens. That means, for example, that we need to encourage the development of Egypt’s tourist industry and see the air routes into Sharm el-Sheikh and elsewhere reopened, but we should not just do that to give our people a nice place to go on holiday; we should do it because it helps to stabilise Egypt’s economy. Once the economy is stabilised, it will become much easier for ideas such as democracy and the rule of law to be re-established.
We have to be very careful indeed that we do not allow tourism to destroy the extraordinary and ancient culture that people are going to see in the first place. We cannot allow tourism to cause the Nile valley, for example, to become one great big western holiday resort—partly because that would be morally and ethically wrong, but also because that kind of behaviour creates a climate in which young Muslims growing up in Egypt will readily believe the myth that the country has been taken over by evil western heathens.
We have to be careful to ensure that allowing opposition groups to flourish without persecution in Egypt does not mean that terrorist groups or groups that espouse terror are allowed to develop undetected. I have a concern about the way that President Sisi has been treating the Muslim Brotherhood. It may be that some of its members are resorting to or promoting terrorism; if they are, they deserve to be taken through the courts and imprisoned. However, we have to be very careful indeed if we are outlawing the single biggest opposition party in any country simply because all its members are accused of being terrorists. Going in too heavy-handed in that way will create a climate where if young people who want a more Muslim society—whether we agree with that ourselves or not—do not have the right to promote their views through peaceful, lawful and democratic means, there are other avenues open to them that they may want to pursue. As has been said, there are others in Egypt and elsewhere who will be only too keen to encourage them to adopt such other methods.
Mention has been made of the high-performing UK ambassadorial staff. I have not met any of the embassy staff in Egypt, but I have certainly been very impressed with the embassy staff I have met in the other countries I have visited so far. The fact that the UK ambassador was prepared to speak out against the treatment of the three al-Jazeera journalists is an encouraging sign. That is the kind of diplomatic pressure that we should continue to apply.
Just this week, we saw a TV presenter in Egypt jailed for mocking a woman who came on a television programme to be interviewed about a claim she had made of sexual harassment. It is appalling for a TV journalist to suggest to an alleged victim of sexual assault that it was her own fault because she went out wearing jeans and a sleeveless top; that is not an acceptable way for a journalist or anyone else to treat a victim of crime. However, throwing someone into jail for that is an overreaction. I do not condone making videos that mock someone else’s religion, but it is a serious overreaction for the Egyptians to have thrown three young Christians in Egypt into jail for producing a video that appeared to mock Islam. In that case, the teenagers said they were mocking Daesh, not Islam. I do not agree with anyone mocking another’s religion, but I do not agree with throwing people into jail for doing that. There are other ways in which we can encourage respect for one another’s faiths.
I am concerned about an apparent shift in emphasis from the UK Government. Whether it is through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or any other Department, concern for promoting human rights in the countries in which we do business appears to be moving further down the order of priorities, while the promotion of interests of UK business and UK investors appears be to moving further up. I understand and support the desire to let British businesses prosper in other countries, but I ask the Government to ensure that we never do anything that is seen to give succour to those in either government or opposition who want to undermine the rule of law and democracy and those who may want to turn Egypt into a country that is a significant danger for us and for those who live there.
It is appalling that a young Italian student who had previously lived in the UK was taken away, tortured and murdered. It is also appalling that hundreds—perhaps thousands—of Egyptian citizens live with the danger of the same thing happening to them. Many of them have died in similar circumstances. The torture and murder of an Egyptian citizen should appal us just as much as the torture and murder of an Italian or UK citizen. I want to see an Egypt where all 90 million Egyptian citizens can live in peace and harmony with one another.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing the debate. He spoke with great experience and knowledge of Egypt and set it in its proper context; I think we all benefited from that introduction. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who spoke clearly and effectively about the horrific death of Giulio Regeni. I will say a little more about that later on.
The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) set out so well the context of Egypt in the region. She used what I thought was a very good phrase: “democracy was never going to happen as it does in Tunbridge Wells”. That was very telling. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, stood up for religious freedoms and, of course, blushed at the offer of a holiday with the hon. Lady in Sharm el-Sheikh.
As we have heard, Britain and Egypt have a long, close and often tumultuous relationship, but Egypt remains a key ally for us in the middle east. We are key trading partners, and as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, the UK is the biggest source of direct investment into Egypt. More than 1,000 British companies invest in and operate in Egypt in sectors such as finance, energy, construction, pharmaceuticals and IT.
Of course, as the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Bristol North West said, there are also the thousands of British tourists who visit each year, or would if they could get to Sharm el-Sheikh. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to update us on the progress made on restoring flights to Sharm el-Sheikh. Those flights are vital for the Egyptian economy, which desperately needs the summer season, and for British holidaymakers, who are already making their plans. In fact, numerous holiday firms, including Thomas Cook, are currently offering holidays to Sharm from May, so is the Minister confident that the security measures will be sufficient by then for flights to resume?
Egypt is, of course, more than just an economic partner to the UK; it is also an important strategic partner in the Arab world and a key ally in the fight against extremism, against Daesh and Assad in Syria, and in north Africa and the Sinai. We need to work with Egypt to tackle extremism, and we want it to do more to tackle terror financing. All of that gives us a very good reason to work with Egypt and, for those reasons, we need a stable Egypt.
It is clear that over the past two years, the Government have improved relations with Egypt. Since the election of President Sisi in June 2014, albeit on quite a small turnout, the Government have gone out of their way to build relations with the Sisi Government, and I welcome many aspects of this Government’s work to improve those relations. First, as I have said, it is very important that we co-operate on security and countering extremism. Secondly, as an MP for Hull, which is a key centre for renewable energy, I was very pleased to see the memorandum of understanding signed on a multibillion pound renewable energy deal with a British company. Thirdly, I am very pleased to see that 2016 is the year of British-Egyptian co-operation on science, innovation and higher education.
However, we have to remain critical friends of the Sisi regime. To promote stability, we need not just to support the Government of President Sisi, but to encourage his Government to tackle some of the underlying issues that have caused so much instability over the past few years. Stability requires respect for human rights, for the constitution and for democratic participation. It requires corruption to be tackled and the rule of law to be promoted, and we cannot promote academic co-operation and innovation unless we also promote academic freedoms.
The Amnesty International report from 2015-16 paints a bleak picture for those aspects of Egyptian society. The rule of law has been undermined by mass detentions and mass trials, which are rarely fair. The relationship between the state and its citizens has been undermined by routine allegations of police brutality, torture, arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearances. The treatment of women is a particular concern in relation to sexual violence.
Respect for democratic institutions has been undermined by repeated attacks on freedoms of assembly and non-governmental organisations, and I am very concerned that those actions, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West said, are fuelling the disquiet that has previously led to problems and revolutions in Egypt, and are making it more difficult for there to be a transition to a fully stable democracy.
Charlotte Leslie
Although I agree with much of what the hon. Lady outlines, does she agree that there is a ray of hope in that in the new Parliament, it is surprising how many women representatives, in particular, there are and how many people from different faiths?
Diana Johnson
I am very pleased to have taken that intervention. I think that is a good sign—if there are more women in any Parliament, it is usually a good sign of progress, so I welcome that.
To get back to my point, it is important that the British Government should be prepared to make it clear to the Government in Egypt that we expect them to operate to a higher standard on human rights issues. It is in our interest to promote British values of human rights and democracy, and it is also in the interests of Egyptian stability for it to do the same. However, as an example of the Government’s reluctance to do that, I want to return to the case of Giulio Regeni, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. He set out so effectively what happened in the horrific murder of this academic and talked about what has been described—the systematic ripping out of fingernails, the broken ribs, and the brain haemorrhage that happened to this man. It is just appalling.
I raised some parliamentary questions with our Government to ask what their response was. I was told that the Government support the Egyptian and Italian investigations, but reports suggest that the Egyptian investigation is seriously flawed. The Italian ambassador has complained of a lack of access. There are real concerns about whether Egypt has the capacity to conduct a genuinely impartial investigation.
I wrote to the Minister on 16 February 2016 pressing upon him the importance of this case and the need for Britain to intervene to ensure that an impartial investigation takes place and to offer British assistance. I look forward to receiving a response from him. In particular, given that we are in this year of co-operation on education and research, I would think that the Government have had many opportunities to raise this case. There have been press releases, partnership agreements and a visit from the Prime Minister’s special envoy, but academic freedoms seem to have been excluded from that academic dialogue. We appear to have had a situation in which the Prime Minister’s special envoy was in Egypt discussing academic co-operation, weeks after the body of a murdered British academic was found, but as I understand it, that was not raised.
Other countries have not remained silent. The Italian Prime Minister Renzi stressed that it was because of his Government’s “friendship” with President Sisi that he stood in a position to demand the truth and stressed that it was critical for the future of Italian-Egyptian relations. The UK Government need to realise that it is because of the strength of our economic, social and security co-operation that we can also be in the position of critical friends. Weakness from the Government in not taking the matter up is not helpful. I hope that the Minister, in his response this afternoon, will be able to reassure us that he is having those conversations with the Egyptian authorities. I also look forward to him responding to the other points that I have raised, particularly on tourism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship again, Mr Pritchard, and I echo the comments that have been made across the floor; this has been a very timely and important debate. I congratulate, as others have done, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—my good friend—on securing this debate and on opening it with an exposé of his knowledge and understanding of what is happening not just in Egypt but in the region itself, and of Britain’s unique relationship and the role that Parliament is playing.
I want to say thank you to colleagues; it is because we are able to visit the country a number of times and develop relationships to understand what is going on that we can speak with some authority about matters there and have debates such as this in this House. We are all the wiser for that, and the relationship is all the stronger, so I am very encouraged. I have visited the country a number of times as a Back Bencher and as a Minister, and I know that Egypt very much appreciates such visits and appreciates the dialogue too.
We have heard some excellent contributions, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), has said. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) raised specific points, and the link is understandable given the academic connection with Giulio Regeni. I will come to that matter and speak in a bit of detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) spoke of the challenges in Governments and the changes that have taken place. It is fair to say that any country that had endured the decade of change that Egypt has had to go through would have been severely tested. It is pleasing to see the direction of travel that Egypt is going in but, none the less, a huge amount of work still needs to be done. That is why Britain must stand firm in providing that support.
I was pleased that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) took a bit out of my speech by commenting on the importance and role of the trade envoy, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson); we are very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is able to take on that role. It underlines the significance of having these trade envoy positions, which allow detailed knowledge to be exchanged and for that relationship to be pursued. The hon. Member for Strangford also spoke of some of the military support that we are providing as Egypt deals with terrorism, and I will come to that in my speech, too.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) spoke of the importance of the continuing governance of reform and I very much agree. I am sad to say that he also made this very binary: either we challenge the human rights situation and therefore the prosperity agenda stops, or we are happy with the human rights situation and therefore prosperity can start. I am afraid it is not as simple as that. I should make it clear that our work and our relationship, which comes not just from the commercial angle, allow us to have frank conversations to the frustration of those who would like to see more in the public domain. We often find ourselves having greater leverage in and influence on what is going on behind the scenes because of the manner in which we conduct our activities, which is not always on the front pages of the newspapers.
Peter Grant
I certainly did not intend to give the impression that the choice is between human rights on one hand and economic prosperity on the other. If I gave that impression, I apologise. The point I wanted to make was that Egypt gives us the best possible opportunity to demonstrate that respect for human rights, diversity and economic prosperity can all happen at the same time.
Mr Ellwood
I will come to that point as I develop my argument.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North spoke in her usual formidable style and clearly understands these matters. We spar on a number of issues across the middle east and I thank her for the tone she adopts in these debates when putting forward extremely important points. She spoke first about the flight concern, which I will come to, and the case of the Italian student, the importance of the economy and, linked to that, stability and the opportunities in front of us. I am grateful for the points she made. As always, if I do not cover all the points that have been made, I will write to hon. Members in due course.
In the limited time available, I want to take a step back and place Egypt today in context. It is worth reminding ourselves that it is a cradle of ancient civilisation and a very proud part of the world. It has gifted to the world some of the earliest forms of central governance, literature and major feats of engineering. It connected the world with the Suez canal in the 19th century and has been a centre of Arab culture and regional political leadership in the 20th century.
In the Arab world, Egypt sits astride the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League and occupies a unique position in international affairs. Despite experiencing some tumultuous times in the 21st century, Egypt has delivered another major feat of engineering through expansion of the Suez canal in just one year under President Sisi. That truly represents Egypt’s ambition in looking forward.
Although not as long standing as Egypt’s ancient history, Britain’s interests are also deep and long standing in modern times and include an historical British presence, close business links, more recent efforts to bring peace in the region and working together on the UN Security Council. President Sisi’s visit to the UK in November was an important moment in deepening our relationship further and an opportunity to have those frank conversations I spoke about.
Egypt is the Arab world’s most populous country, is on the frontline in the war against Daesh and in north-east Sinai, and has a critical role in bringing stability and security to Libya. Egypt is a vital partner in a troubled region. It is clear that its stability is in our interests. I am proud to say that since 2010 the UK has spent some £30 million in Egypt and we plan to spend a further £50 million between now and 2020. All this funding has the ultimate aim of helping to support the country’s continued stability. There are, of course, many aspects to stability. Our work in Egypt focuses on security, the economy, governance and education. I will take each in turn.
A number of hon. Members asked about security. The crash of the Metrojet airliner, the murder of a Croatian oil worker and the attacks on Egyptian troops make it clear that Egypt faces a real threat from terrorism, so security is key. To protect ordinary Egyptians, tackle radicalisation and safeguard tourists, we are working closely with the Egyptian Government, training bomb disposal officers and close protection officers, and welcoming military officers to Sandhurst and other prestigious military training establishments here in the UK. This will help to meet the threat emanating from north-west Sinai and the region.
Egypt’s greatest external security threat remains Daesh’s planning and launching of attacks from bases in eastern Libya. The UK is supporting Libyan efforts to finalise a Government of national accord, which is vital because only a unified national Government can begin the difficult work of restoring stability and tackling the threat posed by Daesh from the west of Egypt. In Gaza, the UK is providing aid and working to convince Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to take steps to improve conditions, which is in the interests of Egypt’s long-term security.
We are, of course, continuing our extremely close co-operation on aviation security so that we can resume flights as soon as possible. Sharm el-Sheikh is proven to be a clear favourite with tourists. Prior to the changes, almost 1 million visitors wanted to go to Egypt every year. I am unable to give further details, but huge efforts have been made. I spoke to the deputy National Security Adviser yesterday. Some final pieces of the jigsaw need to be put in place, but I hope it will not be too long before flights are resumed.
The hon. Member for Cambridge raised the very sad case of Giulio Regeni. I can only echo what I said in my reply to the question. We are very saddened by this tragic death and very concerned about the reports that he had been tortured. He is an Italian citizen and there is protocol on who can lead and participate in the investigation. Having said that, we have raised our concerns with the Italian authorities. We very much support Italian and Egyptian efforts to investigate and have requested that that be done in full to recognise what happened. The Italian police now have a team on the ground in Egypt. We will continue to raise the matter. I will be visiting the country very soon and will certainly ask further questions, but although the individual studied in the UK, there is a protocol on which country can lead and be involved.
Egypt has elected a President, has a new constitution and now has a Parliament, which is to be celebrated. We are working to help to make parliamentarians stronger and to encourage visits. I hope that the work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will continue. As the new Parliament beds in, we want to do more to strengthen this vital institution and I hope that Members with a keen interest in Egypt, many of whom are here today, will be able to play an active role in that.[Official Report, 9 March 2016, Vol. 607, c. 3MC.]
We are looking to President Sisi and the Egyptian Government to make more progress on human rights—that has been echoed today—and on freedoms. We are concerned about detention of political and civil society activists and journalists, deaths and reports of torture in police detention and prisons, and the continued narrowing of space for civil society to operate freely. We continue to believe that respect for human rights is vital to effective governance for the Egyptian people and long-term stability
A vibrant economy is a necessary precondition for security and democracy. I am proud that Britain remains the largest foreign investor in Egypt. British companies have invested over £25 billion in recent years. I was pleased to lead the largest trade delegation to Egypt for 15 years when we had the pleasure of meeting President Sisi.
Education has an important role and I am pleased that the British Council has taught English to over 90,000 Egyptians in the last five years.
I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne a few minutes to respond so I will conclude. We remain a close and important partner of Egypt. I am grateful for this debate to underline our commitment to the country and pleased that other Members of Parliament have also been able to do so.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful for this wide-ranging debate in which we have hit many of the principal issues. The tragic death of Giulio Regeni stains Egypt’s reputation, but I am sure that with the Minister’s good offices our Government will do their part in bringing some form of closure and justice to the situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered British support for stability in Egypt.
School Provision: Christchurch
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered planning for school provision in Christchurch.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for this timely opportunity to discuss a very important issue in my constituency.
I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 30 December, requesting that he call in for his own determination the planning application made by Dorset County Council to itself—application 8/15/0665—to develop a site wholly within the green belt for the construction of a new school. The county council has accepted that the proposal is a significant departure from the local plan because it involves development on green-belt land that was reconfirmed as being within the green belt as recently as 2014. It is hardly surprising that the application has generated 688 letters of objection. There was, Mrs Main, an earlier plan to remove the land from the green belt for housing, as part of the core strategy, but following consultation, that proposal—to remove land from the green belt—was abandoned. I am sure that you can imagine the consternation of local people that it is now being revisited after such a short interval. That is creating anger and despair.
In response to my letter and a parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, whom I am delighted to see in his place, told me that he would wait to see whether the county council granted itself planning permission before deciding whether to call the matter in. To the surprise of no one, on Thursday 18 February the county council duly granted itself detailed planning permission for a new two form entry primary school at Marsh Lane, Christchurch. I therefore wish to use the opportunity presented by this debate to press the Minister very hard, on behalf of my constituents, to call in the application and have a proper independent examination of the issue and, in particular, whether a suitable alternative site for a primary school is available. I say that because almost all those who have supported the planning application have done so reluctantly and on the basis that extra primary school places are needed in west Christchurch and there is no alternative place to put them. It is the great TINA—there is no alternative. That is why they support putting the new school on the green belt.
In my submission, the county council has failed to consider seriously potential alternative sites. It failed to look at two brownfield sites that are currently vacant and awaiting redevelopment. One is a site for which planning permission was given for a new Asda supermarket. That development is not now proceeding and the developer has sold the site, but no new plans have been drawn up. I am told that the site is available on the open market. The other site, on which I will concentrate, is the Christchurch town centre site variously known as the Bargates site, or the site of the former magistrates court/police station and the Pitside car park.
In the report to the planning committee on 18 February, at appendix 9, consultants engaged by the county council described the Bargates site as
“not big enough for the accommodation required for a two form entry primary school”.
That would have been correct if the site in question was only 2.8 acres, as they asserted in their report; however, the site is 4.74 acres and comprises land currently in the ownership of Dorset County Council, the Dorset police and crime commissioner, the Hospital of St Mary Magdalen Trust and Christchurch Borough Council. Under Department for Education guidelines set out in “Building Bulletin 103” of June 2014, the actual area would be more than sufficient for a two form entry primary school.
As co-owners of the site, the county council and the borough council must have known that the Bargates site is much larger than described in the report. Local people are wondering why they—and, I think, many county councillors and borough councillors—have been kept in the dark. The suspicion is that all the public authorities that own the land would think themselves financially better off if they used the Bargates site for more lucrative development than the provision of primary school education. It is therefore in their financial interests that the school be built on much less expensive green-belt land. As I am sure the Minister will agree, that pattern is repeated up and down the country. The cheapest land available is often the green-belt land, precisely because of its protection. If a local authority is proposing to develop green-belt land where the consequence is that it will save itself money, it is incumbent on my hon. Friend to be even more circumspect in deciding whether to allow that to go through without intervention from the centre.
It has taken some 12 years to assemble this unique town centre site. Plans for the development of the site have not yet been published, let alone been the subject of public consultation, but I understand from a meeting that I had at the beginning of last month that there are proposals for a 3,000-square-metre care home and 1,850 square metres of retail. The remainder of the site would be for housing, but there would be no community use.
Government policy on green belt is designed to encourage the redevelopment of brownfield land. The land at Bargates is exactly that. There are 221 car parking spaces there, on open land; there is a redundant magistrates court and police station; and there is a substantial residential building, currently boarded up, with a big adjoining garden, which certainly until recently was used for the keeping of pigs. That is being released by the Magdalen charity. That is the site, but at the meeting of the planning committee council officers argued that it could not possibly be used for education purposes because it was not mentioned for education in the core strategy. Of course, nowhere was mentioned for education in the core strategy, because the education authority was asserting at that stage that there was no need for any new sites in the borough for schools. Therefore, this site was not mentioned, nor was the green-belt site at Marsh Lane. If the county council had been more up front, the debate about the core strategy could, and indeed would, have included the relative merits of building a new school in the town centre as against building a school on the fringes of the town, on the green belt.
The advantage of building the school in the town centre is that it would form part of a new education cluster. It would be much easier for families with children at both the secondary school and the primary school to do the school run, because the primary school would be very close to the secondary school, Twynham Academy, for which it is the feeder and, indeed, in the grounds of which the primary school is currently housed. It will also be part of the Twynham Learning Federation, which is headed by Twynham Academy but will also include the new Twynham primary from this September. It would be easily accessible by public transport from both east and west Christchurch and it would be close to town centre car parks. The buildings would be available for community use during the evenings, holidays and weekends in a location convenient to the public. The school pupils would be within easy walking distance of town centre amenities such as the library, the Regent Centre, the Priory church and the playing fields and recreation ground on the opposite side of the road. Adequate undeveloped land on the site would be available for play space.
The report that went to the planning committee from the officers said that there would be no room for playing fields. However, in the letter sent to Councillor Jamieson by the principal planning officer, Mr Williams, on 17 February, Mr Williams says that the provision of playing fields would be very expensive. He does not refer to the fact that it would not be possible to provide playing fields on that site. That goes to the core of the issue. It is much cheaper to provide playing fields on open green-belt land adjoining the marsh and the flood plain but that is not what planning policy is, or should be, about.
At the meeting of the planning committee, the report to the committee from the county council officer also said,
“The current buildings would be unsuitable and would have to be demolished and replaced.”
Well, that is accepted. Everybody accepts that the old magistrates court with the cells down below and the police station need to be knocked down, but I do not see that as an objection to building a new school on the site. The county council officer raised other concerns including the one to which I referred earlier—that the site is too small. In other words, the council officers were misleading the councillors who were considering the planning application by providing facts that were not correct.
The officers went on to say that the school is geographically in the wrong location for the community it needs to serve. That is not correct either. The school that is proposed to be built on the green belt is currently temporarily housed at Twynham Academy, which is a few hundred yards down the road from the Bargates site.
Another objection raised by the county council officers is that because the Bargates site is in a town centre location, it is unsuitable for a primary school. Again, that is in defiance of local experience. One of the most popular primary schools in Christchurch is the Priory Church of England Primary School, which is on a small site in the centre of town and has the same catchment as the new school. The new school is already in temporary accommodation right in the centre of the town and there has been no suggestion that parents have been put off by the location. Indeed, many regard it as much more convenient for the school run.
From what I have said, the Minister may agree that the conclusion reached by the responsible officer in paragraph 6.14 of his recommendation is not consistent with the facts. Yet the officer went on to say,
“I am satisfied that there are no other sites of sufficient size to meet the identified development need that are available and should be regarded as preferential alternatives to the application site”.
As I have said, that conclusion was based on false information. That the Bargates site is not available is an extraordinary assertion to make, because the site is still owned by the county council, the borough council and the police authority. If the county council and borough council were prepared to recognise educational needs as a priority, the solution to the development of the site for a school would be in their hands. Public consultation on future uses of the site is not intended to start until May, with a view to a planning application later in the year. That consultation could easily be about using the site for a primary school, with a planning application later in the year to meet the timetable required for the new school.
The other issue worth mentioning is the size of the school. The new Twynham Primary Academy to which the Secretary of State for Education has recently given authority is one form entry. Expressions of interest were invited by Dorset County Council on the basis that,
“The projected pupil numbers have identified an immediate requirement for 1FE with a further growth to 2FE when population figures warrant it and agreed”
by the county council. The statement is reinforced in the county council’s January 2016 paper, “Christchurch pupil place planning strategy 2016-2019”. The paper is marked as a confidential document, but for the purposes of the debate it is important that everybody should know that paragraph 2.1 says,
“For west Christchurch, DCC continues to pursue the establishment of a new 1FE Primary School. The site/building will have capacity to expand to 2FE if required in the future.”
So the county council accepts that there is no immediate need for a two form entry school, which bears upon the issue of the timescale within which the situation should be sorted out properly.
The county council says that the area only needs a one form entry school with the capacity to go to two forms, partly because that would deliver six forms of entry for primary school places in west Christchurch. That takes no account of the new Parkfield School, a primary free school that opens in 2016 with two form entry and is located in the western part of west Christchurch, close to the airport. Yet the county council gave itself permission for a two form entry primary school with the potential to extend to three form entry. Why did it do that? It involves an unwarranted impact on the neighbourhood and intrusion into the green belt that is not justified even by the county council’s own evidence.
The implications are that the proposed design of the school, as approved, has been criticised by the borough council as being intrusive in the landscape. In response, the county council has said that the school needs to be in that position so that the council could make it into a three-form entry school in the future. The borough council’s criticism could have been addressed if the school were to be one form entry with the option of additional buildings to make it two form in the future. A one form entry school with the potential to be two form entry would obviously have much less impact on the green belt, the sites of special scientific interest and local traffic. It would also fit more easily on to the town centre site to which I referred, and on to some of the other sites that the county council said could not accommodate it because it needed a site for a two form entry school.
This is a serious issue. If we have a public inquiry, the inspector could look at the alternative sites to the green belt and could examine the evidence, which is contradictory. The county council is asserting that it needs a two form entry primary school, but the county council officers, in a confidential document, say that it only needs a one form entry school.
Many people have asked why the draft core strategy, which was adopted in 2014, did not envisage the need to propose or allocate a site for a new school. Christchurch county councillors were informed by Mr Williams in a letter on 17 February that,
“Late in the preparation process my understanding is that discussions took place between Planning Officers at Christchurch Borough Council and representatives of the County Council as local Education Authority over the possible need for a new primary school to serve West Christchurch. As the Draft Core Strategy was already at a very advanced stage, a decision was taken not to modify the Strategy to take account of the potential additional development requirement. The planning application proposal has, therefore, fallen to be promoted as a departure from the Development Plan.”
The problem is that as a departure from the development plan is decided by the county council itself, it is not open to the same independent scrutiny and examination as it would have been had it been dealt with as part of the core strategy, which is another reason that it is essential that this—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he might want to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter. He has already eaten somewhat considerably into the Minister’s time.
Mr Chope
I am familiar with that, Mrs Main. I am using, say, 20 minutes of the 30 minutes available to put my case, because I know, having been a junior planning Minister in the past, that the Minister will not be able to give me a very substantive reply today. I hope he will be able to say that he has listened to what I have had to say, and then to make some other comments about the importance of preserving the green belt. I have not had an opportunity to put all the concerns on the record, and I thought it was important to do so in this debate, which I hope will not cause my hon. Friend, the Minister, any problems.
In conclusion, I hope that, taking all I have said into account, the Minister will call in the application for the Secretary of State’s consideration and will effectively have an independent public inquiry into the issue.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing this debate and on putting so fully his case on behalf of his residents. I appreciate his concerns, particularly on the more general issue of development on green belt, which I know is of considerable importance to him, to communities including the ones he represents, and to other parliamentary colleagues.
As my hon. Friend has outlined, and as he understands, the proposal is currently before the Secretary of State to determine whether call-in is appropriate. As we have also received a request to intervene from my hon. Friend, it would be inappropriate of me to comment on the specific application, as that could prejudice any consideration of these matters. I know he understands that. I will, however, outline a few things more generally, as he rightly guessed I might, to give some background to the present situation.
To put the matter in context, about 475,000 planning applications are made to local authorities every year. Obviously, we have powers to call in some decisions, and the current approach is set out in a written ministerial statement of October 2012. To put it in context, in 2015 just 24 cases were called in by the Planning Inspectorate for inquiry. He will be reassured to know that the officials of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government are currently considering the application on the Secretary of State’s behalf. Their assessment will consider whether the application, or the issues raised by concerned parties, justifies intervention based on the Government’s call-in policy. The Secretary of State or one of the other Ministers will decide whether to intervene.
The national planning policy framework is very clear that the purpose of planning is to deliver sustainable development. I make it clear that it is not development at any cost, nor is it development anywhere. Localism means choosing how best to meet local needs, not whether to meet them. Meeting local need is not just about houses; as my hon. Friend rightly outlined, it is also about the wider needs of the community, including educational needs.
We are committed to improving the education of our younger generation. We have worked hard to encourage efficient use of land and buildings to facilitate the schools we need. We have also ensured that the national planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting educational needs. The framework and accompanying guidance are clear that local planning authorities should work with other providers to assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, including education infrastructure, as part of their local plan. Such plans are important, and they should set out a positive vision for the area; they should also be realistic about what can be achieved and when, including with regard to infrastructure. In areas where there is both a county council and a district council, it is important that those bodies work together constructively to gather evidence of likely educational needs and to look for the correct and appropriate sites for any new required schools.
I congratulate Christchurch Borough Council on putting in place a core strategy in 2014. An up-to-date local plan, prepared through extensive public consultation, sets the framework in which decisions are and should be taken, whether locally by the planning authority or, I stress, at appeal.
My hon. Friend knows that the Government attach the highest importance, as he does, to protecting our green belt. Our new guidance in 2014 re-emphasised the importance of green belt and adds that the presence of constraints such as green belt can constrain the ability of a planning authority to meet its needs. We make it clear that green-belt boundaries should be established in local plans, which can be altered only in exceptional circumstances using the local plan process of consultation and independent examination. I note that Christchurch Borough Council decided and successfully argued for changes to its green-belt boundaries to allow for new development to go forward, which is why it was a locally led, properly calculated decision.
I understand what must be my hon. Friend’s frustration that, following that review of green-belt boundaries by the council in a proper and appropriate way, proposals are still being made for green-belt land. Our planning system allows people to make proposals for development in areas such as green belt, but most types of new buildings are inappropriate development in the green belt and by definition, therefore, are harmful to it. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that such development should not be approved except in very exceptional, special circumstances. Each planning case obviously has its own unique facts and contexts that have to be determined on their own merits.
When I am out visiting communities and speaking to constituents, I hear widespread support for the provision of more housing, more schools and more hospitals for our growing population, which I know my hon. Friend recognises and supports, but that support is often swiftly followed by concerns about where those homes, hospitals and schools should be built, with appeals to protect our open and green spaces and countryside. It is therefore important that new developments are located in the right place for each local area. We are committed to ensuring that delays in the planning process are kept to a minimum, but I assure him that we will be aiming to issue a decision on whether to call in the proposal as soon as possible. He has made his views clearly known today, and he will be formally notified as soon as that decision has been made.
Question put and agreed to.
Human Rights Framework: Scotland
(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
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future framework for human rights in Scotland.
The framework for human rights in Scotland is reaching a critical point, and determining its future has therefore become an issue that my colleagues and I have been attempting to bring before the Attorney General and the Secretary of State for Justice for quite some time. We believe that any future framework currently rests on a constitutional precipice, one that requires more substance from the Government than we have received up to now. I personally stated my concerns to the Attorney General and the Secretary of State on numerous occasions and in many forms—written questions, oral questions and through my duties on the Select Committee on Justice. My colleagues and I are yet to receive answers containing any kind of substance. For that reason, I am delighted to secure this Westminster Hall debate.
Our position, and the crux of this debate, is predicated on a sound legal assertion that human rights are devolved to Scotland, and not something on which this place can legislate for Scotland. The legal basis for that assertion is the Scotland Act 1998, which is in effect the Scottish Parliament’s constitution. We argue that it is as close to a written constitution as Scotland can acquire at present.
I will take this opportunity to explain exactly why, in legal terms, we believe that human rights are devolved to Scotland. Before I do that, I ask the Minister in his response to save us from the message repeated ad nauseam that he believes in human rights but that he just has a problem with their interpretation by the European Courts. We understand that point. I do not seek a debate on the rights and wrongs of human rights constituted here or in Europe; I want a debate surrounding the legalities of any action this Government could take on human rights and how that affects Scotland. If he fails to give those answers in clear terms, I will write to allow him an opportunity to consider his response further so that the issue of human rights in Scotland can be clarified and this damaging uncertainty on our citizens’ protection can end.
I will outline the legal basis for my argument. The Scotland Act does not specify which powers are devolved to Scotland; that is simply not how our constitutional settlement works. Schedule 5 to the Act actually lists the powers reserved to the Westminster Parliament, with the rest—de facto—being devolved to Scotland. So, for any matter to be reserved to the UK, it must—simply must—be listed within schedule 5 to the Act.
I certainly hope that the Minster is aware that human rights are not listed in any form within schedule 5 to the Act, meaning that they are—as a matter of fact and of constitutional law—devolved in their entirety to Scotland. I also assume that he is acutely aware that any attempt by this place to legislate on schedule 5 will require—again, as a matter of constitutional law—the explicit consent of the Scottish Parliament, through a legislative consent motion under the Sewel convention, and that convention has arguably been strengthened by the Scotland Bill that is making its way through this place.
Consequently, my next request of the Minister is this: can he please confirm, in clear terms, whether the UK Government agree with this analysis? It is essential that we put this matter to bed, once and for all, so that we all understand that human rights are indeed devolved to Scotland.
The UK Government have various proposals—mooted proposals—on the table. One of those is the potential withdrawal from the European convention on human rights. The rights contained within the ECHR are enshrined in the Scotland Act, in section 57, meaning that the Scottish Parliament cannot do anything contrary to convention rights contained within the ECHR, essentially enshrining those rights in the Scotland Act. Section 57 of the Act combines with schedule 5 to the Act to mean that no UK Government can remove section 57, meaning that the ECHR—even if the UK removes itself from its effect—will always apply to devolved issues in Scotland.
So my next question to the Minister is this: do he and the UK Government accept that even if they withdraw from the ECHR, they cannot remove section 57 from the Scotland Act, meaning that the ECHR will continue to have an effect on devolved matters?
I am very proud of the UK’s role in the creation of the ECHR and we should never forget the reason it was established in the first place—to prevent the atrocities of 1914-18 and 1939-45 from ever happening again. In my view, we fragment the ECHR at our peril; it sets out minimum standards. So I often ponder why we would even moot removing ourselves from those standards, unless—in effect—we wanted to dilute them.
The repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 has often been mooted by the Government. Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act contains a list of Acts that the Scottish Parliament is deemed not capable of repealing or amending. It includes, most obviously and in my opinion regrettably, the Act of Union. The Human Rights Act 1998 is also listed in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act, and as a measure of comfort—or, indeed, otherwise—to the Government, I can assure the Minister that Scotland will continue to comply with schedule 4, as she has absolutely no plans to repeal the Human Rights Act or indeed the Act of Union. We understand that it would be ultra vires to do so.
If we combine schedule 4 to the Scotland Act with schedule 5, it is clear that the UK Government cannot repeal the Human Rights Act from effect in Scotland. If the UK Government did so, they would require a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, and I do not think that any Scottish Government of any party of any colour would agree to that. Nevertheless, if the Human Rights Act is considered capable of being repealed in Scotland by Westminster, the Scottish Parliament could easily legislate to enact our own Human Rights Act, which I stress would not be a desirable outcome, as we could not insist that any new Act passed in Holyrood could cover reserved matters. The Human Rights Act provides important protection to Scottish citizens in relation to the laws passed on reserved matters in this place.
It is also worth pointing out that the Human Rights Act merely ensures that the convention rights are applied by the UK courts. Perhaps that is why it attracted cross-party support in the 1990s; it was hardly controversial then, and in my view it remains uncontroversial in Scotland.
This Government have not only mooted repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR but they have made clear their ambition for a British Bill of Rights. Although I accept that nothing of that kind has been published yet, a British Bill of Rights was a manifesto pledge and we expect it to come to the Floor of the House at some point during this Parliament. So my next question to the Minister is this, and it is a question that my party has asked many times since May: will any proposed British Bill of Rights apply to Scotland? The name would suggest that it would be intended to cover Scotland. However, our position—founded on schedule 5 to the Scotland Act—is that, as a matter of constitutional law, the UK Government cannot impose a British Bill of Rights on Scotland without a legislative consent motion under the Sewel convention, which we believe would be withheld.
Hopefully I have made it clear that, in our view, human rights are devolved to Scotland. Of course, the Scottish Parliament could legislate for a Scottish Bill of Rights, but it has absolutely no plans to do so. As yet, we have no idea what a British Bill of Rights would contain, but no one can seriously believe that this UK Government would take the opportunity within that process to strengthen our citizens’ protections.
The protections of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are hugely important to our citizens: the right to life; the right not to be enslaved; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right to a fair trial; and the right to marry, to name but a few. As Lord Bingham memorably said in 2009:
“Which of these rights…would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary?”
We say that none of them are. We view the convention not as a ceiling but as a baseline—a minimum. We should be building on these rights and not diluting them. Indeed, Scotland can go further if she so wishes.
Repeal of, or withdrawal from, the ECHR would not strike a blow to lawyers, criminals or ambulance chasers; it would strike a blow to the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed. Scotland wants to increase our citizens’ protections. We want to put human rights at the heart of our domestic policy, as we pledged to do in our national action plan on human rights, which the Scottish National party Government launched a couple of years ago. For example, our dementia strategy in Scotland is based on agreed rights for patients, including the right to have access to treatment, and the right to have dignity and respect. We see this process as the way forward—strengthening our citizens’ rights, because we are here as lawmakers essentially to protect the citizens who put us here.
My view is that we would look rather insular to our partners in the wider world if we repealed or withdrew from the ECHR. When most countries in Europe have adopted the ECHR, what message would it send out to the world if we withdrew from it or repealed it, and diluted our citizens’ protections? It would be a sad day indeed for the UK’s reputation abroad.
I look forward to the sovereign people of Scotland coming together to draft a written constitution for Scotland, enshrining these rights forever in a future independent Scotland.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) for securing this very important debate.
Last December, I had the great pleasure of tabling an early-day motion to recognise Human Rights Day 2015. As a lifelong advocate of human rights, one of the great privileges of being an elected Member is now being in a position to effectively defend them, and they do need defending, as they are under attack from the current Government. They will say that this piece of legislation—the Human Rights Act—is not one and the same as our actual rights and that the reaction to their plans has been overblown. I say that is nonsense. Plans to scrap the Human Rights Act are no less than a full-on assault on the rights that I hold dear. The dismissiveness of the Government betrays the seriousness of the implications of their plans. It is a decade since the Prime Minister set up a panel of legal experts to draw up a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. Ten years on and that plan is still met with the fiercest opposition. Ten years down the line, the Tories are still unable to spin their plans as favourable, useful or in any way feasible.
It is important to remember that the Human Rights Act received cross-party support back in 1998. It is just as important that the Prime Minister’s plans do not even have the full support of his own Back Benchers, let alone Members from other parties.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights visited the UK in January and said:
“My impression is that the debate over the HRA in Westminster is not a true reflection of concerns outside England”?
With regard to the position in Scotland, does she agree with the Commissioner’s statement?
Margaret Ferrier
Yes, I totally agree with that statement. It is important, not only in England and Scotland but worldwide, that we support human rights and hold firm our thoughts on how important they are.
The tenacity of the Prime Minister in pursuing this wholly unpopular and unnecessary move is deeply unsettling. Like a hunting dog with a scent, he simply will not accept defeat. One wonders precisely what the motivation behind that staunch attitude is. After all, the plans are not only appalling, but risk a complete constitutional change and crisis in the UK.
Human rights are not reserved, and it is not conceivable that the Human Rights Act could be scrapped without legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament. I am proud that the Scottish National party will stand up to the Tories and will not buckle over our fundamental rights. I stood for election under the party promise that we were “Stronger for Scotland”. For me, our steadfast and unyielding opposition to this attack on human rights is our motto in practice. People in Scotland want a strong voice standing up to the unscrupulous attacks on our rights and core values, and that is what we are providing. Human rights are not Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish—they are not American or Australian for that matter. Human rights are universal, and we will not stand by and allow them to be diluted wherever they face threat. Repealing the provisions of the Human Rights Act would be nothing short of a colossal misjudgment, as it would remove important protections for people in the UK.
It is important to point out that the Human Rights Act did not give any new rights to UK citizens when it became law in 1998. It ensured that convention rights could be interpreted and considered by courts here in the UK. The UK was one of the first states to ratify the European convention on human rights. It is only right and proper that those rights are upheld in British courts, without the need to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights, if we are still in Europe. Justice should be accessible, yet just as we have seen with the introduction of tribunal fees, the Tories seem hellbent on making it as prohibitive as possible, particularly for those on low incomes. Human rights are centred on fairness for all of us. Removing access to justice, or at least making it much more difficult for vulnerable people, is itself an attack on our rights. What does that say to the rest of the world? What message does it send if we are unwilling to stand up to regimes such as that in the Saudi Kingdom, and instead pour our efforts into degrading our own protections?
My early-day motion called on the Government to work constructively with other Governments to promote the universality of human rights. The convention on human rights remains as much the shining beacon of human achievement that it was decades ago when Winston Churchill was championing it. I want to see human rights protected not only in Scotland, but across the UK and beyond. I want to see our human rights strengthened, not diminished. I want to see fairness at the core of everything we do as legislators. We can only do that if we stand up against these plans, loudly and clearly, and say no.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) on obtaining this debate. I apologise for being a little late, but I caught up during the latter stages of his contribution. I was interested to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who dealt with the threat posed by the discussion that is clearly going on within Government on the future of the Human Rights Act 1998. Without disagreeing with what she said, this is a moment where we might stop and take stock. If the Government are conducting a good-faith exercise, it need not be a threat, and it could be an opportunity.
Let us not forget that the implementation of the Human Rights Act brought a greater and more immediate degree of access to convention rights. The convention was written in the 1950s and the framework of human rights and wider jurisprudence was very different from the one we have today. Nowadays, there is a whole range of different rights, including employment rights and social and economic rights, that are worthy of protection and of being given the same status as the right to a family life, for example, which is an important part of the ECHR. Those are the sorts of rights that I would like to see brought in. If this is a good-faith exercise on the part of the Government—that remains to be seen, and I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment, because we have never heard much by way of progress, although perhaps the Minister will have something to tell us today—I am happy to engage with them on the basis of broadening and strengthening the human rights covered by the Human Rights Act.
At this stage, it is useful to remember the history of the debate that brought us to where we are today. Essentially, the creation of the Human Rights Act and the terms in which it was introduced were something of a fudge. Throughout the 1990s and back into the 1980s—and possibly before that, for all I know—there was ongoing and substantial debate about the creation of a British Bill of Rights. I say that it was a fudge because the creation of a Bill in the terms that were discussed would have brought with it a fairly substantial challenge to the conventional Diceyan view of parliamentary sovereignty and the sovereignty of this place.
The justiciability of decisions taken by Government and Parliament was something that Tony Blair just did not have the stomach for taking on, even in the early years of the 1997 Government. For that reason, he came forward with a fudge, albeit an elegant one. It compelled courts to bring consideration of convention rights in an immediate way that meant that citizens did not have to go through the whole rigmarole of taking things to the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, it has worked well ever since. In the time since the Human Rights Act was introduced, we have seen a substantial revision of the Diceyan view of parliamentary sovereignty. If we were to start with a Bill of Rights today, it would not scare the horses in the way that it clearly scared Tony Blair back in the late 1990s.
Joanna Cherry
Like me, the right hon. Gentleman is a Scots lawyer. Does he agree that the Diceyan view of the sovereignty of Parliament is very much a doctrine of English constitutional law? In Scottish constitutional law, there is a very strong foundation, recently reiterated by Lord Hope in the Supreme Court, in Jackson v. Attorney General, that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is an English doctrine and that in Scotland the people are sovereign.
Mr Carmichael
That was a debate that we enjoyed in the 1990s—I say “enjoyed”, but I use the word in the loosest possible sense—in the days of the constitutional convention. It was the underpinning of the claim of right that led to the Scottish Parliament being founded. There is a fairly long pedigree of jurisprudence in Scots law. Dredging my memory of the days of constitutional law, I go back to the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, where that view was well-founded, albeit in obiter dictum.
The opportunity is there for something more to be done with human rights and a new Bill of Rights that would build on the Act that we currently enjoy. I hope the Minister would be open to that. More important and more fundamental to me than the Human Rights Act is that this country should remain a party to the European convention on human rights. If the worst predictions of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West were to come true and the Human Rights Act were repealed, that would not deprive us of the convention rights; it would just make them that much more inaccessible. It would take us back to the situation we had before the 1998 Act, when citizens could access their convention rights, but it ultimately required going all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. That would be a genuine retrograde step.
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, that would also put us in rather poor company. In fact, leaving the convention on human rights would leave the United Kingdom sitting—I hope rather uncomfortably—with Belarus.
Richard Arkless
The right hon. Gentleman is putting a typically articulate view. What is his view on the potential legalities and problems that the UK Government might have in either an imposition of the British Bill of Rights, repeal of the Human Rights Act, or withdrawal from the ECHR? That is what I would like the debate to focus on.
Mr Carmichael
To take each point in turn, the imposition of a British Bill of Rights would require an Act of Parliament. If that were to extend and build on convention rights, and if it were not in contravention or conflict with convention rights, I would see no difficulty with that. If we were to seek to withdraw from the convention, that would bring with it enormous problems. It would bring the political problems that I have already touched on and would put us in the company of nations that, frankly, I do not want to find myself with. Beyond that, it would put us in breach of treaty obligations, because the convention rights are built into the Good Friday agreement, which, above all else, is a treaty between ourselves and Ireland. It would also throw our own constitutional structure into disarray, because the Human Rights Act is hardwired into the devolution settlement in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, this is one of those things that was probably not given consideration when the Conservatives set up their commission 10 years ago. That probably explains the fact that this seems to have landed in a pile of things in the Ministry labelled “a bit too difficult to deal with; we’ll maybe look at it next month”.
Richard Arkless
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. He makes the position clear from a UK point of view, but I am interested in his view on whether a potential imposition of a British Bill of Rights would require a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament and whether, in his view, that consent is likely to be given by any party of any colour or any Government in Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
We would have to see what the terms of the Bill were before deciding whether it required legislative consent. There are a lot of social and economic rights where the Bill would of course cut across devolved areas and would need a legislative consent motion. Employment rights, for example, are clearly reserved. We would need to see what the terms were. Like all such changes—if I can expand the thought for a second—these things are based on building consensus before introducing a Bill, so that everybody knows exactly what it will cover. I am talking about my fantasy Bill of Rights and the things I would like to have in it, which are not reflected much in a great deal of what we have heard from the thinking of the Government. However, I am ever the optimist, so we do not know what we might we get from them.
If we were to get a Bill of Rights that built on the convention rights, did not interfere with them and left us still a party to the European convention, I think that would be well received in Scotland. I would be disappointed to think that, just because such a Bill had been initiated here in Westminster, it would not be accepted by people in Scotland. The protection of human rights has been reserved broadly since the days of devolution, and people in Scotland would still respect that, having voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The last time we went round this course in Westminster Hall, he assured us that we would be hearing more. We have not heard quite as much as I had hoped we would; we have heard just as much as I thought we might. We shall wait to hear what he has to say. I hope that at some point we will get the answers to how the Government are going to get out of the hole they have been digging for themselves, in terms of the constitutional difficulties that any repeal of the Human Rights Act would bring.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Main.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), who secured this debate, made it clear that he specifically wanted to talk about legalities. He has argued that human rights are integral to the devolution settlement, and he referred to the fact that the European convention on human rights is written into the Scotland Act 1998 in sections 29 and 57, which provide that the Scottish Parliament cannot pass any legislation that is contrary to any of the convention rights, and a Scottish Minister or a Member of the Scottish Government cannot pass legislation or carry out any act that is contrary to convention rights. Neither of those sections would be changed by a simple repeal of the Human Rights Act, because they are part of the Scotland Act.
My hon. Friend also made the point that if we look at the scheme of devolution that was devised by the late Donald Dewar, who was the first ever First Minister of Scotland, his plan was simple and, in my view, to be lauded: everything would be devolved unless it was specifically reserved. We find in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act a list of the matters that are specifically reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, but one will search in vain for any mention of human rights in schedule 5, so in my respectful submission it is not correct to say that human rights are a reserved matter. They are a devolved matter. My hon. Friend asked the Minister to confirm whether he agrees that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, human rights are not reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.
It must be recognised squarely that in terms of schedule 4, the Human Rights Act cannot be modified or repealed by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish National party and the Scottish Government accept that. However, we argue, as my hon. Friend did, that because human rights are not reserved in terms of the Scotland Act, if the British Parliament wants to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, it will be legislating in the field of human rights, and under the Sewel convention it must seek the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament. Hopefully, by the time we get to that stage, the Sewel convention will be on a statutory footing as proposed in clause 2 of the Scotland Bill.
I reiterate my hon. Friend’s question to the Minister: does he accept that for repeal of the Human Rights Act, and for repeal of anything in the Scotland Act, a legislative consent motion would be required from the Scottish Parliament? Also, does he appreciate that as recently as the end of 2014, more than 100 Members of the Scottish Parliament indicated that they supported the Human Rights Act? A cross-party majority was in support. Is he also aware that the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has made it very clear that her Government, which has a majority in the Scottish Parliament, would never support repeal? So does he accept that, with regard to the future framework for human rights not only in Scotland but across the UK, the British Government could not repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and that that is extremely likely to be withheld? The third question that my hon. Friend posed was the question of whether the British Bill of Rights will apply to Scotland. If it is going to apply to Scotland, does the Minister accept that there would have to be a legislative consent motion?
The First Minister of Scotland has been keen to emphasise on several occasions that she wants to preserve the Human Rights Act for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for Scotland. There is no question of the Scottish Government doing a deal whereby Scotland would get out of the repeal of the Human Rights Act and leave the rest of our partner nations in the United Kingdom swinging in the wind. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) stressed the universality of human rights, and the First Minister of Scotland has argued that it is important they are kept for the whole of the United Kingdom, so it is not the intention of the Scottish National party or the Scottish Government to do any deal. We would like to be involved in the cross-party movement to keep human rights for the whole of the United Kingdom.
That feeds into another point made by both my hon. Friends. The repeal of the Human Rights Act would send out completely the wrong message to the world about the United Kingdom’s direction of travel on human rights. It is striking to look at the testimony of Hossam Bahgat, the director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. He was involved in the Tahrir square uprising five years ago and said:
“The most important thing that the British can do to support human, rights in Egypt is to support human rights in the United Kingdom...It is significantly more difficult for us to fight for universal human rights in our country, if your country publicly walks away from the same universal rights.”
To his great credit, the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), made a similar point when he recently highlighted the fact that Russia is already using the UK’s position on human rights to delay implementing European Court judgments and that the UK is being cited by countries such as Venezuela as justification for ignoring obligations under the American convention on human rights.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in Edinburgh last September, he described the ECHR as
“arguably the single most important legal and political instrument for promoting human rights on our planet.”
He has previously stated that if the UK is
“instrumental in damaging its effectiveness it will sit very strangely with our settled policy of promoting human rights globally.”
That is a voice from the Minister’s party supporting the notion that it would be unfortunate if Britain sent out the wrong message about our support for human rights.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I very much agree with the hon. and learned Lady on the question of universality. When I went to Cameroon a few years ago to work on a Voluntary Service Overseas-funded project that provided legal aid to people who could not afford it, I was struck by the fact that when I went into lawyers’ offices and courts, there was the universal declaration of human rights. We always think of it as being quite high-flown and possibly even overblown, but they rely on it in courts of first instance. Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that the Human Rights Act need not be the last word in human rights? Legislation could be introduced in several areas to give protection that is more contemporarily relevant than that envisaged in the 1950s.
Joanna Cherry
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway indicated, the Scottish Government are already attempting to hard-wire human rights into all their social policy—not only the human rights enshrined in the ECHR, but social and economic rights. For example, the Scottish Government have made it clear that when they have the additional powers they hope to get to develop a social security system for Scotland, respect for the dignity of the individual will be at the heart of the system. We are keen to move the human rights debate on in Scotland, which is why the Scottish Government brought in Scotland’s national action plan for human rights. When the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights visited Scotland in January, he singled out the national action plan for support.
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that socioeconomic rights are important. Many other countries in the world recognise that and have such rights in their written constitutions. The constitution of the new Republic of South Africa, which was drafted, at least in part, by one of the finest lawyers on the planet still living, Albie Sachs, recognises the importance of socioeconomic rights, which are embedded in it. Some of the Nordic states’ constitutions also embed socioeconomic rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, it is our hope that when we become independent we will have a constitutional convention to write a constitution for an independent Scotland. We will look at the models and examples of other forward-looking democracies—not only in the west, but including examples such as South Africa—and seek to write socioeconomic rights into our constitution.
There is universal recognition among all those who have spoken so far of the importance and universality of human rights. We are of one voice, across the SNP-Lib Dem divide, in saying that socioeconomic rights are important and that the rights in the ECHR are only a floor for human rights, not a ceiling. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) expressed the hope that the currently proposed consultation might be brought forward and might look at socioeconomic rights. I am far less of an optimist than he is. All the noises I have heard coming from the Government Benches have suggested that it will be an exercise in reducing rather than bolstering human rights protections. Regardless of the purpose of the exercise, do the Government accept that human rights are devolved, not reserved, and that the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament must be sought before there is any interference in the human rights regime that effects Scotland?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I, too, commend the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) for securing this important debate. For him and for you, Mrs Main, these are obviously fresh and interesting developments, but for the rest of us there is an element of groundhog day. The Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and I were present on 30 June last year for what I think was the previous human rights debate in Westminster Hall, which was secured by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). One would have thought that in eight months we might have moved on somewhat, but we have not moved far at all.
First, I shall explain what we now know that we did not know then, and then I shall outline what we still do not know. The hon. and learned Lady made essentially the same point as she made in the previous debate:
“Ministers…suggest that they believe that the UK Government could repeal the Human Rights Act without reference to the Scottish Parliament. They argue that the Sewel convention would not be engaged because human rights are a reserved matter. That is wrong and legally illiterate. Human rights are not a reserved matter and are not listed as such in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 424WH.]
I do not have the benefit of the expert legal advice that the Government have to enable me to comment on that—I am not sure whether Minister himself does these days, as he and the Lord Chancellor are in that interesting lacuna in which the outers currently find themselves—but I can at least say that this is a hotly debated matter. This is one of the most intractable issues in which the Government have engaged in since beginning this rather sorry and unwise attempt to unravel the Human Rights Act, which was introduced by the last Labour Government.
If nothing else, the Lord Chancellor is candid and answers questions as honestly as he can. When called upon to give answers about this matter, he struggled and said that it was still under review. That is probably right. Given the proximity of the Scottish Parliament elections, there is an additional problem: we will shortly be entering a period of purdah. The former leader of the Labour party, now Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking him to confirm that
“no part of the consultation period will overlap with the period where purdah applies or the Scottish Parliament will be dissolved”.
The response simply said that the Lord Chancellor will
“adhere to any Cabinet Office guidance”.
Can the Minister shed some more light on those matters? It might not be important now as it does not look like there will be any movement before the Scottish Parliament elections or, indeed, the EU referendum. Nevertheless, I would appreciate some clarity. If the positions of the devolved authorities—not only the Scottish Parliament but the Northern Ireland Assembly—are going to be significant in any legislation that is drafted, there will need to be a full consultation, which cannot be done properly during a period of purdah.
Let me throw one other thing into the mix. The Scottish Conservative general election manifesto—a rather recherché document that I am not sure we are all terribly familiar with—said:
“The Scottish Parliament will retain the final say on the role of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the Scotland Act 1998.”
The Minister may wish to clarify the Government’s attitude to the European convention on human rights. From what both he and the Lord Chancellor have said recently, it is pretty clear that they now do not envisage our withdrawing from the convention, but that is always hedged with the phrase, “Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.” It would be helpful if the Minister ruled that out, because that would remove one of the major problems that we face.
That is the territory we are in and those are the questions that we can glean answers to. Although it is always valuable to run these issues around the Chamber again, until the Government actually bring something forward, we are all stumbling around in the dark.
Mr Carmichael
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the timetabling. It is unlikely that we will see anything this side of the purdah period for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections. It is impossible at this stage to consult with the Administrations in any of the devolved regions before the elections. However, it would be exceptionally unwise thereafter to start a consultation in the middle of the referendum campaign. This discussion is best conducted in a period of relative calm and stability. I fear that the period between 6 May and 23 June is not going to be—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions are getting rather long and are not in the form of questions.
Andy Slaughter
I apologise on behalf of the legal profession. Once we get going, it is difficult for us to stop.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This will probably be my last or my last but one point, so the Minister has time to respond. If nothing else, we must have some clarity on the timetabling. I remind the Minister, although I am sure he engraved these milestones, that the Conservative manifesto said:
“We will…scrap the Human Rights Act and curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights”.
Last year, the Prime Minister, writing in no less a paper of record than The Sun, said that it is
“one of the first tasks I set the new Justice Secretary”.
In May 2015, the Minister said:
“The Government will consult fully on its proposals for a Bill of Rights during this session.”
From what we read today in the papers, it may well be that the Prime Minister gets round that by simply extending the Session and pushing the Queen’s Speech back. Nevertheless, we need certainty.
Nothing could be clearer than what the Minister said in Justice questions on 8 September 2015:
“We will bring forward proposals on a Bill of Rights this autumn. They will be subject to full consultation. The preparation is going well.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 205.]
The Lord Chancellor modified that on 2 December 2015, when he said:
“My original intention was to publish the consultation before Christmas. It has now been put back. I expect it will be produced in the New Year.”
I think we can say that we are quite firmly in the new year now. It would be helpful if the Minister to give some clarity, because I am reliant on another authoritative source—The Mail on Sunday—which told us at the weekend that the Bill has been put off indefinitely to avoid an explosive new row over Europe. Specifically, it said that the work
“has now been completed by Justice Secretary…and is sitting on a desk inside No 10… Downing Street is refusing to publish the legislation, they say. Insiders believe the explanation is Mr Gove’s decision to defect to the Out camp in the referendum.”
We know that there are political difficulties for the Government, which may be why it has been convenient to postpone what seems to be the entire Parliament’s business, including the Queen’s Speech, until after the referendum. It would just be nice to be told that in terms.
Two weeks ago, we were told that there will be a sovereignty Bill, possibly published this week. What has happened to that? How does it relate to reform of the Human Rights Act? It may be that the boat has sailed and that, because the people whom the Prime Minister wished to keep within the tent—including the Minister—are already outside the tent, there is not much point in introducing a sovereignty Bill. It is extraordinary that we talked for so long about the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights, but we barely hear them mentioned now. Everything is about the European Court of Justice. I wonder whether it was just the words “human rights” that caused difficulty for some Government Back Benchers, and that in the hothouse atmosphere of the European Union referendum debate the caravan has moved on. That is no way to run a Government. If nothing else, I ask the Minister to give us some clarity on whether we are going to have a proposal, so when we next debate this matter we can have a substantive debate rather than run around the houses.
Let me end on this point. Although the have been some comic—or tragicomic—aspects to how the Government have handled this matter, in essence it is extremely serious. Other speakers talked about the universality of human rights and the importance of giving effect to international law and human rights in our domestic courts. That is not something to trifle with and it should not fall prey to internal disputes within a political party, even if it is the governing party.
I remind the Minister of what the director of Amnesty International said last week when its report was published —it is a shame that Amnesty needs to remind the Government of their duties on this matter—
“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. People around the world are still fighting to get basic human rights and we should not let politicians take our hard-won rights away with the stroke of a pen.”
I know that the Minister is a sensible, intelligent man, and I hope he takes those comments on board and is not swayed by the passions of Europe, pro or anti.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
It is an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, for the first time, I think. We have stood shoulder to shoulder on many issues and you have steered us wisely thorough this debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on their stimulating contributions. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for sharing his fantasy of a British Bill of Rights with us. The serious point that he made is that the Human Rights Act is not the last word on human Rights: it is not the perfect incarnation of human rights in this country, and therefore it can admit of change. I sensed agreement on that point, so the real bone of contention is what that change might look like, rather than the principled question of whether the Human Rights Act has become untouchable.
The Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights across the UK. This debate is an important opportunity to reflect on what that protection looks like now, what it might look like in the future and how it might be improved. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Government will work in the interests of all four nations of the UK, and it goes without saying that I share that commitment. One of the things that unites us as a country is our shared commitment to liberty and the rule of law. Although that commitment has evolved though different instruments, from Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights in England and Wales, to the Scottish Claim of Right, the nations of the UK have evolved with a shared commitment to the common values that underpin human rights and, indeed, the Union.
As an Englishman, I am proud to pay tribute to the Scottish landmarks on Britain’s long road to liberty. I mentioned the Claim of Right, to which can be added the Criminal Procedure Act 1701, which established and entrenched the principle of habeas corpus in Scots law. Scotland has produced some of our very finest thinkers on the subject of liberty and the rule of law. I would single out David Hume and his essays on the liberty of the press and civil liberty. He regarded Government not as the enemy of liberty but as a necessary condition for liberty. As hon. and right hon. Members will know, his work came in the context of the period after the Act of Union, so it was part of the intellectual fabric that binds this United Kingdom.
We share not only the values, but the things that emanate from them—the practical products of a commitment to liberty, such as free elections, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, free and fair trials, and free speech. Those values and their product found voice and strength in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom and are shared across the UK. At the same time, we must reflect on the pluralism within the UK and that the UK is a union of diverse interests, history and legal traditions. Notwithstanding our shared commitment to rights and liberty, there are areas where we diverge. We can look, for example, to the right to trial by jury that exists in England and Wales. Jury trial is practised in Scotland, but it is not there as a strict right, which is perfectly legitimate and respectable. There is room for different applications of fundamental freedoms across the UK. That diversity is not merely to be expected; it is to be welcomed. It would be odd were the SNP, which is effectively committed to secession, not to think that that pluralism was a good idea.
Mr Raab
I will just make a little progress and then I will certainly take interventions.
The balance between shared values and the different application of those values finds voice today in Scotland’s human rights framework. The protection of rights and liberty remains at the heart of Scotland’s devolution settlement—a point made well by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway. The compatibility of devolved legislation with fundamental human rights is central to the competence of the Scottish Parliament. While competence for the UK’s human rights framework remains with the UK Government and this House, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are responsible for the application of human rights in devolved areas and are free to act on human rights issues within devolved policy areas. The core substantive rights are common across the UK, but we have an element of pluralism in our approach to the procedural mechanism for protecting human rights. That variable procedural geometry means that the application of human rights admits some measure of variation across the UK.
We had lots of theoretical considerations of the human rights position as it applies in the UK and in Scotland, but let us discuss some tangible illustrations. Unlike in England and Wales, for example, the Scottish Government do not provide for mandatory fatal accident inquiries for unnatural deaths of persons detained under mental health laws, despite some criticism from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Another example is the hourly rousing of detainees in police cells, which takes place in Scotland but applies only to vulnerable detainees in England. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland recommended reform in that area. A third example—again, this list is illustrative, not exhaustive—is the notification period for demonstrations in Scotland, which is 28 days compared with six days in England. That has been the subject of criticism by the UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. It is also highlighted in “Is Scotland Fairer?” the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s latest report, along with other areas that the commission concluded required improvement, such as violence and harassment against children and young persons and hate crimes perpetrated on grounds of disability or sexual orientation.
I should make it clear that the Government support the principle that Scotland should have the freedom to take action on rights in devolved areas, in line with its own priorities for implementation, and to decide how it balances fundamental human rights with the need to implement practical and sensible policies for the people of Scotland.
Joanna Cherry
I mentioned in earlier that the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights recently visited the UK. Is the Minister aware that the commissioner complimented the Scottish Government on the fact that they are looking to go beyond the European convention on human rights by implementing other international human rights treaties directly into Scots law? Is the Minister aware that the commissioner also said:
“The Scottish National Action Plan for Human Rights is also a good example for”
the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Raab
I read the remarks of the commissioner. Indeed, I met him in person and he seemed satisfied with the assurances I gave him that our reforms, proposals and what we have in mind will not see us turn into the basket case of Europe or become like Belarus, which is nonsense that is bandied around frankly rather irresponsibly. I did meet the commissioner and did read his comments about Scotland, and it is right to pay tribute to the improvements and to what the rest of the Union can learn from Scotland. Action plans and the theoretical stuff is fine, but it is what we do in practice that really counts for the citizens of Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK.
In addition, the more powers that the Scottish Government assume for the implementation of human rights for the people of Scotland, the more they can be expected to be questioned and evaluated on the degree to which they live up to the responsibilities that they acquire. We hear an awful lot from the SNP in this House about how the UK Government and Parliament are threatening human rights in Scotland, but I hope that that is not being used as a distraction from considering the degree to which the Scottish Government meet their commitments in reality in Scotland. It is not about brandishing action plans, to which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway referred, and making pious policy statements about human rights in theory instead of focusing on delivering in practice. Perhaps the hon. and learned Lady would like to respond to that point.
Joanna Cherry
I would not, because the Minister is here to answer questions put to him by us in this debate. I am conscious of the clock and that there is about three and a half minutes left. He has been asked a number of questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) that he has not yet answered. He has also been asked some important questions by the spokesperson for the official Opposition about the purdah period. Will the Minister answer those questions?
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. It is usually customary to let the Minister respond to the question being asked.
Richard Arkless
The Minister says that the issues have been dealt with before. The question is simple: do the Government believe that human rights are reserved or devolved? He says that they have given the answer before. Where and when? We have never heard it.
Mr Raab
We have made it clear that the Human Rights Act can be revised only by the UK Government, but the implementation of many human rights issues is devolved. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland neatly summed up the position on the Sewel convention and legislative consent motions. Scotland cannot responsibly take a decision on such things until it has its package. In relation to the European convention on human rights, which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway also asked about, I do not know how many times I have said it in the House, but our current plans do not involve our withdrawal from the convention. If the hon. Gentleman has been in for Justice Question Time once over the past six months, he will have heard me say that.
In fact, the Scotland Bill, which is currently completing its passage in the other place, serves as a reminder of the Scottish Parliament’s role in deciding the right balance for Scottish people in Scotland. To take just one example, when competence for the franchise in local and Scottish parliamentary elections is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to determine whether the current ban on convicted prisoners voting ought to remain, as in the rest of the UK. The SNP has made it clear that it did not want the franchise extended to prisoners for the Scottish referendum. Nicola Sturgeon made that clear in May 2013.
Mr Raab
I will not because I have so little time left.
Under the Human Rights Act, however, once Scotland has devolved responsibility for the franchise, the only way that the Scottish Government will be able to retain the ban on prisoner voting is by relying on the nationwide ban enacted by the UK Parliament here at Westminster. It is one of those things that SNP Members should remember, ’fess up to and be a bit more honest and straightforward about when they hurl around the suggestion that we are attacking human rights.
There is actually widespread support in Scotland for replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, which has been borne out by all the YouGov polling.
Mr Raab
The hon. and learned Lady does not like the facts.
The truth is that the UK’s history of respect for human rights predates the Human Rights Act in all parts of the United Kingdom. That protection will continue to be totally central to our human rights framework in the years ahead. I look forward to many more opportunities to discuss the substance and detail of the framework with hon. Members in due course.
Question put,
That this House has considered the future framework for human rights in Scotland.
The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.
Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).
Written Statements
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Correction
(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)
During oral questions to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday, 4 February (Hansard, col. 1061) I said in answer to a question from my hon. Friend, the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann);
Legal proceedings were brought and the decision was made by Truro Crown court, under the hon. Judge Carr, to instead impose an enforcement order.
I should of course have referred to an enforcement undertaking rather than an order and I wish to correct the record by means of this written statement.
[HCWS569]
European Union
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have today laid before both Houses a paper, “Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union”. This paper is the first part of the report that the Government will publish to meet the requirement of section 7(1) of the European Union Referendum Act 2015. The second part of this report, which will provide information about the rights and obligations that arise as a result of the UK’s membership of the EU, will be laid at a later date. Both parts of the report will be available to read together on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS570]
Grand Committee
Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2016
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2016.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2016, the Employment Allowance (Excluded Companies) Regulations 2016 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2016. As all three sets of regulations deal with national insurance contributions, it seems sensible that they should, with the leave of the Committee, all be debated together.
The substance of the two instruments concerning the employment allowance was announced at the Chancellor’s summer Budget on 8 July last year. The NICs rates and thresholds for the 2016-17 tax year were announced as part of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement on 25 November.
I will start with the Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2016. The Government are committed to supporting businesses which want to expand their workforce. To that end, the employment allowance was first announced at Budget 2013 as a reduction of up to £2,000 a year for eligible businesses and charities on their employer NICs bill. In the year 2015-16, the allowance has benefitted almost 1.2 million employers, helping to cut the cost of employment in the UK. These regulations increase the employment allowance to £3,000 from 6 April 2016. The increase will further support businesses and charities to enable them to grow. As a result of this increase, 90,000 more employers will be taken out of employer NICs altogether. It also means that firms will be able to employ four workers full-time on the new national living wage next year without paying any employer NICs.
The Employment Allowance (Excluded Companies) Regulations 2016 focus the employment allowance on companies that support employment. As announced at summer Budget 2015, these regulations mean that limited companies where the director is the sole paid employee will no longer be able to claim the allowance from April 2016. This ensures that the allowance is focused where it should be, on its original objective of supporting businesses with the costs of employment. HMRC anticipates that there still will be around 1 million employers who will benefit from the employment allowance next tax year, taking this measure into account.
Lastly, I turn to the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2016. As you may be aware, these regulations contain some technical detail, so I hope noble Lords will bear with me while I explain their content. The consumer prices index rate of inflation is the basis of indexation for most of the national insurance contribution limits and thresholds. The CPI rate of inflation was minus 0.1% in the year to September 2015. As a result, not all of the national insurance contribution limits and thresholds will need to be changed for the 2016-17 tax year. The exceptions to this are the upper earnings limit, the upper secondary threshold, the upper profits limit and the new apprentice upper secondary threshold.
I start with the upper earnings limit, which is the level of earnings at which employees begin to pay class 1 national insurance contributions at the additional percentage rate. It is aligned with the point at which the higher tax rate is paid. From this April, the income tax personal allowance will increase above indexation from £10,600 to £11,000 and the point at which the higher tax rate is payable will increase from £42,385 to £43,000 in the 2016-17 tax year. The upper earnings limit will be increased from £815 to £827 per week from 6 April 2016 to maintain this alignment.
The upper secondary threshold is the level below which employers are entitled to a 0% rate of national insurance contributions on the earnings of employees under the age of 21. Since it was introduced in April last year, the zero-rate earnings band for employees under 21 has supported the jobs of more than 1.5 million young people. The UST will continue to be aligned with the upper earnings limit and will also be set at £827 per week from 6 April 2016.
From April this year, employers will also be entitled to a reduction in secondary class 1 NICs on the earnings of eligible apprentices under the age of 25. This will reduce the cost to employers of providing apprenticeships for young people. The new apprentice upper secondary threshold will be the level below which employers are entitled to a 0% rate of NICs on the earnings of relevant apprentices. Like the UST, it will be aligned with the upper earnings limit, and so it will be set at £827 per week from 6 April 2016.
Moving on to the self-employed, these regulations also set the upper profits limit for class 4 contribution liability. The upper profits limit is the level of profits below which the self-employed pay the main class 4 percentage rate of NICs on profits above the lower profits limit. The UPL also will rise to maintain alignment with the level at which the higher rate of income tax is payable—to £43,000 for the 2016-2017 tax year. These regulations also set the prescribed equivalents of thresholds and limits I have mentioned for employees paid monthly or annually.
In the 2016-17 tax year, employers will continue to pay contributions at 13.8% on earnings above the secondary threshold. Employees will continue to pay 12% on earnings between the primary threshold and the upper earnings limit, and 2% on earnings above that. This is in line with the commitment the Government made in the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Act 2015 to provide certainty for businesses and employees by locking in the main rates of class 1 NICs for the duration of this Parliament.
Finally, to ensure that the National Insurance Fund can maintain a working balance throughout the coming year—which the Government Actuary recommends should be one-sixth of benefit expenditure for the year—these regulations provide for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of benefit expenditure to be made available to the National Insurance Fund in the 2016-17 tax year. A similar provision also will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.
I commend the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2016, the Employment Allowance (Excluded Companies) Regulations 2016 and the Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2016 to the Committee.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations this afternoon. As he has outlined, there are three separate instruments before us today. I will start by addressing the two on the employment allowance before turning to national insurance limits and thresholds. The Opposition will not oppose any of the measures, but I will put a number of questions and clarifying points to the Minister.
Labour is committed to stimulating employment growth and in particular supporting SMEs, and therefore from the outset we have been behind the intent of the employment allowance. That said, it is not clear whether the policy is having the intended impact. The main reason stated by the Government for these changes is to make the employment allowance more focused on businesses that create and sustain employment, ensuring that the employment allowance is better targeted on employers who may take on additional staff, and so supports the objective of supporting employment. However, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury openly admitted, there is a particular problem when it comes to,
“assessing how many jobs are created as a result of the allowance, because of the inherent complexity in that matter”—[Official Report, Commons, National Insurance Bill Committee, 21/11/13; col. 58].
Given the Government’s stated purpose, it is not at all unreasonable for us to judge the success of this policy against the number of people it enables SMEs to employ. However, due to the apparent impossibility of collecting the necessary data, how would we know? How can the allowance be targeted on particular gaps in small business employment if we do not know who is and who is not using the allowance to take on more staff? Indeed, according to the employment allowance impact report, only 34% of those surveyed stated that they planned to use the allowance to take on additional staff. The majority said that the money would be absorbed into the general revenues and expenditure of the business.
Increasing the allowance by £1,000 to mitigate the increased cost of the national minimum wage seems perfectly reasonable. However, can the Minister go into some more detail about the impetus behind the exclusion of sole-director companies? What were the reasons why further exemptions were felt appropriate? Can the Minister when responding make particular reference to whether the evidence of tax avoidance had encouraged the Government to respond in this fashion?
As I stated at the beginning, we support the measures, but perhaps it will be appropriate to offer a word or two of caution. In the report Awareness and Impact of the Employment Allowance–Research with Small Employers, the main reason for businesses not claiming the allowance was concerns around eligibility. Does the Minister anticipate whether further exemptions will be added? If so, the Government ought to be aware of the confusion that already exists among employers about who is eligible. It is also worrying that the understanding of the rollover mechanism built into the legislation is lower still. Does the Minister not agree that producing policy with the intent of easing the burden on SMEs can only be as effective as the knowledge of those whom the policy impacts? Without this, the efficiencies that the Government are making are pointless.
I turn to some of the specifics about the regulations themselves. The consultation was held for five and a half weeks, between 26 November 2015 and 3 January 2016. Why was the period so short? The Chancellor announced these measures in his summer Budget; surely consultation could have commenced during the Summer Recess?
A more significant point is that HMRC has not published a summary of the responses to the consultation in question. Its publication would be of value—I would be interested to see, for example, whether contributions were made by those who had started their own business and claimed the employment allowance, and what they believed the impact of the proposed restriction of the allowance to companies with a single director would have had on the ability to establish their company. Can the Minister say whether there are any such examples? Could he give a commitment to publish the consultation and place it in the Libraries of both Houses? Given the acknowledgment that data collection on, and analysis of, the employment allowance is difficult to come by, any information gathered on the issue would be of considerable value.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his questions and above all for his party’s support for these regulations, which I believe was also given last year. When I have answered some of the questions, I think he may feel even happier about providing that support.
The noble Lord asked whether the employment allowance achieved its intended purpose of supporting employment, given that the impact report stated that only 34% of those surveyed planned to take on more staff. The aim of the employment allowance is of course to support businesses and help them to grow by reducing the cost of employment. Statistics published by HMRC at the end of October 2015 show that 1.17 million employers have had their employment costs reduced by the employment allowance. Of course, it is up to individual businesses to decide how best to use these savings. The latest research from the Federation of Small Businesses suggests that 29% of small businesses will use the savings to boost staff wages, 28% will employ additional staff and 24% will invest resources. However, this is one of a suite of measures and, as I said, it is up to them how to use the allowance.
The noble Lord made a point about information and asked how we can target the employment allowance to specific gaps in small business employment if we do not have the data about who is using it. There are already positive indications to suggest that employment allowance is being widely claimed by the small business community. The impact report states that nearly seven in 10 eligible businesses with fewer than 50 employees are claiming the allowance. That report was compiled when the scheme had been running for less than a year. Since then, figures show that 1.17 million employers have benefited and, at the moment, 98% of the benefit of the allowance goes to small and medium-sized businesses—by which I mean those with fewer than 250 employees.
I turn to the regulations on excluding single-director companies from employment allowance. The impetus, as the noble Lord put it, behind these is to reinforce the objective of the allowance as a means to support wider employment and to help to ensure that it is focused on reducing the cost to companies of expanding their workforce or taking on their first employee.
On the question of eligibility for the allowance, whether further exemptions will be added to it and potential confusion from the changes, the report on awareness and impact on employment that the noble Lord cited was published last July and represents a snapshot of the research carried out between November 2014 and January 2015. Since then, the Government have published take-up figures and, at the end of 2014-15, the take-up rate stood at 89%—a quite substantial improvement—with more than 1 million employers claiming the allowance. As I mentioned, the mid-year estimate was 1.17 million employers. We are encouraged by those statistics and think that the early concerns set out in the report have eased with the passage of time, but, of course, the Government continue to monitor the effectiveness of employment allowance and its contribution to wider government aims.
The noble Lord asked why the technical consultation on single-director companies was so short. In fact, the tax consultation framework sets out that the consultation period for this sort of secondary legislation is four weeks, and this consultation was a bit longer, at five and a half weeks, because of the Christmas break. It was closed in early January to enable the measure to come into effect in April, as announced. As for a summary of the responses to the consultation on the single-director company measures, paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum provides a short summary of the comments made in response. It was quite short, and we have no plans to extend that because the essence of the replies is contained in that short summary.
The noble Lord asked, in relation to the paragraph in the Explanatory Memorandum on the technical consultation on excluded companies, whether the responses to the consultation informed the action taken to assist small businesses. That paragraph relates to the technical consultation. The responses to the consultation were useful in assisting HMRC to write the guidance for the measure, which will be published in due course on the government website GOV.UK.
The territorial application was mentioned. I can confirm that all these measures will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, as set out in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the employment allowance changes. The paragraph that the noble Lord cited was included in relation to all the SIs to assist the Speaker in the other place by drawing attention to the fact that the instrument does not need to be certified for the purposes of the English votes procedures in the other place.
There was slight confusion about the Government increasing the upper earnings limit, meaning that employees have to pay more national insurance contributions on their earnings. The proposed increase in the upper earnings limit will maintain the alignment with the point at which the higher tax rate is paid. This will increase to £43,000 next year, which is slightly above inflation. At the lower end, the CPI rate of inflation, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, has been minus 0.1%, so those rates have been frozen. That is consistent with the approach taken in the past when the retail prices index was negative, which led to the thresholds being frozen for the 2010-11 tax year.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I may have suffered from a touch of brain fade, but did the noble Lord respond to my question about the extent to which tax avoidance had been a feature in the single-director exclusion?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I did not, or at least I did in the sense that I made the point that it was focused on helping businesses to employ people. This brought it in line with the original policy, so I made it into a positive point and I did not specifically mention avoidance. However, we think that overall, in line with the policy, it is right to focus it on creating employment.
The new policy on apprenticeships starting in April will involve the abolition of the class 1 national insurance contributions for young apprentices under the age of 25. That will obviously reduce the cost of employing an apprentice, which is part of the Government’s strategy to support high-quality apprenticeships. It is part of a wider strategy, which will also introduce the UK-wide levy on employers with pay bills over £3 million to fund the step change needed in apprenticeship starts and help to achieve the 3 million apprenticeship starts this Parliament, which is part of our policy.
I was asked how many people will be affected by the under-25 national insurance relief. The impact assessment published with the regulations notes that an estimated 180,000 employers offer apprenticeships in the UK and are likely to benefit from this measure. The BIS apprenticeship data in England for the 2013-14 academic year show that around 500,000 apprentices under the age of 25 were employed throughout the country. HMRC estimates that there are around 130,000 apprentices in England aged 21 to 24. This group will be directly affected by this measure, with those under 21 already benefiting from the zero NIC rate since April 2015.
I think that I have dealt with most of the questions. Of course, if I have not covered them all, I will certainly look through the record of the noble Lord’s speech and write to him. I repeat that I am grateful to him for his support and I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Employment Allowance (Excluded Companies) Regulations 2016
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Allowance (Excluded Companies) Regulations 2016.
Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2016
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee has considered the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2016.
Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, this order forms part of the implementation of the unified patent court agreement and is an essential step in the United Kingdom’s ratification process of that international agreement. The creation of a single patent system has been a long-held desire across Europe. The current European patent system is fragmented. Even if you go through the European Patent Office, you have to maintain a bundle of patents with each patent covering a single country where you want protection. Each patent must be enforced separately in the national courts of each country. For example, around a quarter of the patents litigated in the UK between 2000 and 2008 had parallel litigation in other European countries involving the same parties. This can be very costly and burdensome.
The negotiations to bring about a single patent and court for Europe were finally concluded in February 2013 with the signing of the unified patent court agreement. The UK worked hard during those negotiations to secure changes to the agreement which UK businesses needed. Most notably, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was personally involved in bringing the part of the court dealing with the pharmaceuticals and life sciences sectors to London. This is good for the pharmaceutical industry, which is very important to the UK economy, and it will further boost the reputation of the UK as a global centre for commercial dispute resolution.
The unitary patent and the unified patent court form a package of European patent reforms which aim to provide a more streamlined and cost-effective option for innovative businesses wanting to protect and market their inventions across Europe. The Government want the UK to be the best place in Europe to innovate, to patent new ideas and to set up and expand a business. The unitary patent and the unified patent court will help us to deliver this goal. Importantly, the whole system can come into effect only once 13 countries, including the UK, have ratified the unified patent court agreement. So far, nine countries have ratified the agreement, and it is likely that the court will be open for business in early 2017.
I now wish to address the matters which the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has brought to the attention of noble Lords as issues of public policy likely to be of interest. The committee raised a concern that the approach to implementing the software exception appeared to be inconsistent with the European Patent Convention, which requires that European patents are treated in the same way as national patents. I want to reassure noble Lords that there is no inconsistency. The UPC agreement introduces an exception to patent infringement which allows very limited use of computer programs. The exception is intended to allow someone to find out how a computer program works so that they can write another program that works with the original. For example, a programmer wishing to write an app to work on a smartphone needs to know how the phone’s software works to make sure that the app will communicate properly with it. The new software exception would allow the programmer to find out how the phone software works, but if the app still used the patented features of the phone’s software, the programmer would need a licence from the patent owner.
The consultation identified widespread and serious concerns from businesses in the high-tech and ICT sectors about the uncertain scope of the proposed exception. Many responses to the consultation proposed a “safe haven” approach, where the exception would not apply to national patents which are granted by the UK Intellectual Property Office. In the light of these concerns, and after further discussions with concerned parties, the Government have decided that the software exception will be introduced only for European patents and unitary patents at first. It will not apply to national patents, thus providing the safe haven advocated by business. The legislation will then be reviewed within five years of entry into force of the UPC agreement, which is expected in 2017. The safe haven approach is not inconsistent with the European Patent Convention, which allows for contracting member states to make special agreements on any matter concerning European patents which are subject to national law, and the UPC agreement is just such an agreement.
The second matter of interest raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee relates to contributory infringement, where a person knowingly provides another with the means to infringe a patent. For example, providing someone with a part which is essential to making a patented invention without the patent owner’s permission could be a contributory infringement. The Patents Act 1977 already makes adequate provision for contributory infringement of European patents valid in the UK. For such a patent, the infringement can occur only in the UK, because the patent is valid only in the UK. The order amends the Act to account for the unitary patent because infringement of a unitary patent can take place in any country covered by the patent, not just the UK. I wrote to the committee on 27 January to clarify those points, and I note the report of the committee which acknowledges that my letter dealt with the issues raised.
The order amends the Patents Act 1977 and makes changes in three areas: it clarifies where the UPC will have jurisdiction and where the UK courts will retain jurisdiction; it ensures that the Patents Act correctly provides for the unitary patent; and it introduces two new exceptions to patent infringement which are provided for in the UPC agreement but which do not currently exist in UK law. These two new exceptions to patent infringement are an exception to allow plant breeders to use patented biological material to create a new plant variety—the UK is the fourth largest market for plant breeding in Europe after the Netherlands, Germany and France, where this exception already exists—and an exception which allows limited use of computer programs, which I have already spoken about.
The European Patent Convention established the current system more than 40 years ago. The order is a major milestone towards achieving the goal of an even more streamlined and cost-effective system. It allows the UK to ratify the agreement in conjunction with a further order on privileges and immunities, which will be brought before the House later in the year, following a recent international agreement. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Lord Lyell (Con)
My Lords, I was waiting for the noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition to commend the excellent work and great speech of my noble friend. Your Lordships may be startled to learn that, 39 years ago, I was a young Opposition Whip taking the Patents Bill through your Lordships’ House. One had to be a lawyer and a scientist, and I am neither, but it enabled me to have immense fun, and I am sure that involved in the proceedings—luckily, not today—are issue and action estoppel, res judicata and many other elements.
One particular chunk of that Bill, now an Act, is concerned with compulsory licences. I thank my noble friend very much for her excellent opening speech. I think that it was less than a minute in that she mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, which caused me to pay close attention. There was quite a problem—indeed, a government defeat—on compulsory licences. Will my noble friend be kind enough to write to me to confirm that there is no major change on compulsory licences, which I think are covered from Section 48 onwards?
If my noble friend glances at page 4 of the draft order, she will see mentioned, among the enormous number of entries on the left-hand side, Sections 103 and 105. Perhaps I should have grasped this 39 years ago, but I did not. Why is there an,
“extension of privilege for communications with solicitors relating to patent proceedings”
in England and Wales—I know not about Northern Ireland—but an,
“extension of privilege in Scotland for communications relating to patent proceedings”?
In England, it is communications with solicitors; in Scotland, it is not necessarily so. I do not think that there is a major problem—it may be a legal problem, or it may be something else. As I murmured to my noble friend before we started our proceedings, I recall that two years ago there was a singularly difficult case that will have concerned her department over extradition, and the law of extradition did not cover the territory of Scotland for that particular matter. However, I do not think that compulsory licences and the communications and privilege that we are discussing will be of that gravity.
I thank the Minister very much for setting out the necessity and the reasons for this order. Perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me about Sections 103 and 105 and confirm that the situation concerning compulsory licences is still in order and working. I am very grateful to her and to the Committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I was not in any sense trying to discombobulate the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I certainly wanted to hear what he said so that I could use anything that he did say to amplify and extend the point that I want to make in response to the Minister. As the noble Lord said, the noble Baroness made a very good fist of introducing a complicated and technical area, showing her ability to switch from detailed trade union negotiations and Sunday shopping yesterday to today’s detail on patents. This subject usually attracts a slightly larger audience. I am rather sad that we do not have the usual coterie of friends and camp followers who normally flood in for debates on this interesting and yet rather narrow topic.
Funnily enough, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has stolen one of my lines, which must be almost unique in the annals of your Lordships’ House. I was going to pick up a slightly narrower point but he raised it for me by drawing attention to a potential territorial problem in the way in which some of the sections are described. Mine is a more general question, which is that this instrument—which we are certainly not against and indeed support—does not include the Isle of Man. I wonder whether some explanation can be given as to why plant breeders and others in the Isle of Man will be excluded from the new benefits. I am sure that the officials supporting the Minister will have a ready answer for that, as it is an obvious question to ask.
I was involved, as was the noble Baroness, in the primary legislation that set up this court and we had a lot of discussions about it. Therefore, many of the comments that I would have made are redundant because we are aware of where this has come from and fully support the way in which it has been developed. As far as I can tell, the statutory instrument is exactly as one would expect it to be.
Having said that, I notice that the Minister said that we were making some progress—albeit glacial rather than dramatic—on getting this to take off. She mentioned that nine out of the 25 countries have now signed up to the agreement, but she said that she thought there was a possibility of the court starting in 2017. I wonder whether she can expand on that a bit. Can anything more be done to progress this? I know that she has been active in Europe on these matters and I am sure that she has been raising people’s interest in it as she has gone around.
Related to that are two questions about overall progress, assuming that we get there in 2017. There was talk in the original discussions in Committee and on Report about the possibility of a second court in this whole approach. The first one is clearly going to be in London, where the bulk of patent work and activity is happening, but there were hopes in Scotland that the expertise within the Court of Session could be deployed if there were sufficient work. I wonder whether she has any thoughts on that and whether progress on that or any further assessments has been made.
Secondly, for those who are not up to speed on the detail, the way in which the scheme operates is that, rather than having a single place within which patent expertise is to be developed, four of the major countries have bid for—and got, as I understand it—the four main platforms of patent law. However, I think that I read in the papers somewhere that there were some difficulties in holding these courts in one or two of the countries which had expressed an interest. Is there is anything to report on that? Clearly, it would be great if more than one court could be located in the UK, and if there were a failure, possibly in Spain, perhaps there will be an opportunity for the UK patent group to bid for that as well.
Turning to the two exceptions which the Minister talked about, the comments she referred to in the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee were broadly supportive of the plant breeding exception, as are we. As has been said and she repeated, the UK has the fourth largest plant breeding industry in Europe, and we must do what we can to try to support it. I did not come across any evidence to back the assertion made in the report that the plant breeding industry is very supportive of introducing this patent to the UK. I do not wish to delay the debate, but if I could be sent a letter explaining where that evidence is to be found I would find that helpful, because my colleagues in Defra have indicated that they would like to be better apprised of this development.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments and for his support for this statutory instrument. As he said, we have debated these issues on and off, and this is a very important European initiative which I am very glad to be presenting to the Committee.
I am also delighted to see my noble friend Lord Lyell and to hear about his experience of the 1977 Act. I will now look to him when I have patent complications, which will improve our discussions in the Tea Room even more. My noble friend courteously gave me advance notice of his questions, so I will answer them briefly and write to him if he feels that necessary. Sections 48 and 49 of the Patents Act 1977 relate, as he said, to compulsory licences. There is no change. The unitary patent regulation requires national law on compulsory licences to apply to unitary patents. He also asked about Sections 103 to 105 relating to the client-attorney privilege before the comptroller of patents. The comptroller will have some jurisdiction over unitary patents, for example over entitlement, so we need to apply Section 103, which is the reason for this curious provision.
Continuing on these difficult questions of detail, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the Isle of Man. There will be a separate order for the Isle of Man, but the Isle of Man Government have indicated that they want the UPC. The noble Lord shot the bullet in terms of questioning me, but I think that the answer is a positive one; this European endeavour will also stretch to the Isle of Man. He also asked about the ratification process. As I have said, we have had nine ratifications so far with a few more expected this summer. In particular, we expect Germany and the UK to be ready this autumn for the reasons I have already stated.
On the point about keeping the pressure on, on Monday I was at the European Competitiveness Council at which Commissioner Bienkowska gave us an update on progress with ratification. I think it is fair to say that the Competitiveness Council is keeping up the pressure in this important area.
In terms of where the UPC will be based, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned that several countries were sharing in the opportunity here, and it is worth just running through them. The court of appeal will be in Luxembourg. The court of first instance will have a central division in Paris and specialist sections in London, for pharmaceuticals, and Munich, for mechanical engineering. The court of first instance will also have a number of local divisions in most member states, including in the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Finland. Sweden and the Baltic states will join together in a regional division based in Sweden.
The case-counting data so far suggest that the UK will only have enough cases to sustain one local division, at least in the early days of the new court. Of course, the UK could set up an additional local division in Scotland in future, should the case load increase, in consultation with the court jurisdictions across the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the object of the software exception. I think I explained this fairly well in my opening remarks. We listened to industry concerns because this exception is untested and there is no case law on its interpretation. As a result, we are implementing the exception for European patents first and will then review how it works—as he said, we have a five-year review clause. In that way, the Government are able to meet their obligations under international law and to give effect to the provisions of the UPC while addressing the real concerns of industry on this issue. I can certainly share some of those with the noble Lord, but they were quite substantial. We believe in listening to consultation on these sorts of matters in the IPO area.
The noble Lord also asked about the evidence from plant breeders. They were pretty noisy about this provision, both here and in the European Parliament. They responded to our consultation to support it. I know that other member states feel the same: that the system for plant breeding works well and you do not necessarily want to add extra patent complications. That is why we felt it was okay to make this exemption.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I understand the case for that, and we take it, but it would be interesting to see the nature of the evidence. I have not seen evidence published for this particular point, and it would be helpful if it was possible to see it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We would of course be delighted to send the noble Lord what evidence we have. It is useful, when you make exemptions, to look at why you are doing it—what the rationale is—and what it means for future cases. I would be delighted to share that evidence with the noble Lord and look forward to his comments. Plant breeding is a very important industry. We are not number one in Europe, but its output is very important to the future of this planet.
I think we are all agreed that the order takes us a step closer to implementing the UPC agreement and makes it easier for businesses to enforce their patents across Europe. Innovative businesses have been waiting for more than 40 years for a single European patent system, and we are much closer to achieving that long-held aim. With the introduction of the UPC, for which we now have premises, firms will be able to start taking advantage of the unitary patent if they so wish. I commend the order to the Committee.
Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, for the convenience of noble Lords, it will be helpful to consider the Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016 together with the Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016. These regulations set out how the register of people with significant control will work and apply the register to limited liability partnerships.
In 2013, the Prime Minister set out the ambition for the UK to improve corporate transparency and tackle criminal abuse of UK corporate entities. I am therefore pleased that we are today debating regulations underpinning the detail of the register of people with significant control, which bring that ambition one step closer to reality. The register of people with significant control is the foundation of the UK’s ambition to increase the transparency of UK corporate entities.
The benefits of the increased transparency provided by the register have the potential to be far reaching. For law enforcement, the Metropolitan police force estimates that, in cases where hidden beneficial ownership is an issue, 30% to 50% of an investigation can be spent in identifying the beneficial owners through a chain of ownership layers. For business, increased transparency will ensure that companies know who owns and controls their suppliers and customers. Investors will also know who controls companies they are investing in. For civil society, increased transparency will allow people to hold businesses to account, and citizens will know who controls companies when they purchase goods or services.
The register of people with significant control—the PSC register—will record the details of people who own or control UK companies. There are five separate conditions for being a PSC, which are set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1A to the Companies Act 2006: first, that an individual holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the shares in a company; secondly, that an individual holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the voting rights in a company; thirdly, that an individual holds the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint the majority of the board of directors; fourthly, that an individual has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over a company, the definition of which is set out in statutory guidance, and would include individuals with significant veto rights over the operation of the company. I shall paraphrase what the fifth condition is for the benefit of noble Lords. The fifth condition is where a trust or a firm controls a company through one of the other conditions and there is a person who has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over that trust or firm. Again, the definition of significant influence or control in these circumstances is set out in the statutory guidance.
Where a PSC meets one of the first three conditions, the company does not need to identify on its PSC register whether that person also meets the fourth condition—I remember discussing that during the passage of the Bill. In summary, the company regulations set out the detailed requirements for the PSC register. They are: the scope of the register; the fees a company can charge for providing copies of its own register; the information to be included on the register; the contents of warning and restriction notices; and how the protection regime will work for PSCs at risk of harm by their information being made public. The limited liability partnership regulations—the LLP regulations—apply the provisions of both the primary and secondary legislation on the PSC register to LLPs, with appropriate modifications.
The full costs of the register of people with significant control are set out in the three impact assessments. First, the enactment impact assessment sets out the broad policy costs, including the costs of the provisions in the Act and many of the provisions in the regulations, which are calculated to have a net cost to business of £85.9 million per year. Secondly, the protection regime impact assessment sets out the costs and benefits of companies applying to the protection regime. This is calculated to have a net cost to business of £4.7 million per year. Thirdly, the impact assessment on the costs and benefits of making a company’s own PSC register publicly available calculates the net cost to business of companies giving access on request to the company’s own register. This is calculated to have a net cost to business of £10.9 million per year. A very important point, given the scale of these costs, is that they are spread over a very substantial population of some 3.4 million companies, including 59,000 LLPs. The average cost per company is estimated to be £25 per annum. As I explained earlier, this is an important policy and the benefits of the register have the potential to far outweigh the costs.
The PSC regime contains robust penalties to promote compliance with the requirements. These measures support law enforcement and the tax authorities’ existing powers and investigations. The most serious offences, when a company fails to investigate its ownership or when a person or body fails to respond to a request for information from the investigating company, carry a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment on indictment or a fine, or both. We will take strong action where companies and individuals break the rules.
Noble Lords will recall from the debates on the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill last year that we put in place a protection regime because this Government believe it is important, where an individual is at serious risk of violence or intimidation, to protect a PSC’s identity from the public register. The PSC’s information will of course still be available to law enforcement, and the individual will still have to fulfil their PSC obligations. Through these regulations, we have set a high bar for the protection regime, so it cannot be abused or damage the utility of the public register. We have tightly drawn the grounds for protection where the risk of violence or intimidation is a result of the company’s activities or where the risk comes from the association of the PSC with that company.
Parts 6 and 7 set out who can apply for protection, what types of PSC information can be protected and how they can apply. Noble Lords will see that Part 6 follows the successful existing company law for directors, whereby a PSC’s usual residential address can be protected. I know I have benefited from that company provision in the past. Part 7 is novel and allows the protection of all of an individual’s PSC information from the public register. This is because we recognise that the nature of a PSC differs from that of a company director. As part of the broader package of changes to company filing requirements made by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, the date of birth—2 January in my case—will be suppressed on the public register at Companies House in the details of both PSCs and directors, so that dates of birth are not so freely available.
I will also set out the key differences in how the limited liability partnership regulations apply compared to the company provisions. The LLP regulations adapt two of the conditions mentioned earlier, so that they apply more appropriately to LLPs. The first condition is adapted to take account of the fact that LLPs do not have share capital. The revised condition is that an individual has the right to more than 25% of the surplus assets of an LLP on winding up. The third condition, which is adapted to reflect the fact that LLPs do not have directors, is that an individual holds the right to appoint or remove the majority of persons entitled to take part in the management of the LLP.
I will bring the other parts of the PSC register provisions to your Lordships’ attention. An important part of the PSC register conditions is the term, “significant influence and control” in the fourth and fifth conditions. During the passage of the Bill I explained that the meaning of this term would be set out in statutory guidance. The draft statutory guidance for companies was laid in the House Library alongside these regulations. I am very grateful to the company law experts and civil society organisations that helped develop this guidance throughout last year. I am also grateful to the businesses and individuals who commented on the guidance when it was published for final comments in December.
The draft statutory guidance for LLPs has also been prepared and is currently published on GOV.UK. This statutory guidance can be laid in Parliament only once the LLP regulations we are debating today have been made. My department has also developed, with the help of a working group of legal experts, business representatives and civil society organisations, non-statutory guidance for companies and LLPs to guide them through the requirements step by step. The guidance was published at the beginning of February and has been well received by businesses so far.
Before I conclude, I will give the Committee an update on international progress, and highlight how the Government are building on the foundation of the PSC register and leading by example on the global stage by putting the register in place. In the EU, the fourth anti-money laundering directive was adopted in May 2015, which means that by early 2017 all member states must hold beneficial ownership information through a central register. I welcome the close working with my honourable friend Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the other House, to transpose this directive.
The UK is taking the lead on extractives transparency. We were the first member state to implement reporting requirements for all large and listed companies, and we expect the first reports for UK companies detailing the payments they have made to Governments across the world to be made available later this year. In a similar vein, in October 2014 the UK was successfully admitted as a candidate country for the extractives industry transparency initiative. This in effect puts more information into the public domain and allows the Government to be held to account for our policies on the extractive industries in the UK. We continue to work with other countries, through the G7 and G20 fora, to implement international corporate transparency standards, which are of course very important. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly. My noble friend makes a powerful case for the regulations and I appreciate the changes which have been made, particularly as regards the protection regime to allow confidentiality where people may be vulnerable to intimidation or attack. However, I want to sound a cautionary word about how we can pile further regulation in with the best of intentions but which may have consequences that we do not really appreciate and do not want. It is the balance to be struck between transparency on the one hand and privacy on the other; that is to say, my right to confidentiality about my personal and private affairs and the right of the wider public to know about situations where my actions may affect them.
The regulatory balance that we are trying to strike must be to have a regulatory structure that is sufficiently robust and imposes sufficiently strong standards to attract people, because they have confidence in the way the markets are being policed, but not such high standards that the bureaucratic burden of doing business becomes too heavy and people therefore seek alternative ways of carrying out their businesses in markets in other parts of the world. We also need a structure that is risk-focused so that it looks at the points of vulnerability and worry. My noble friend was unwise enough to mention the money laundering directive in her remarks, which gives me a chance to say that this is a classic example of blanket regulation which achieves very little indeed. It makes wonderful work for compliance officers filling in forms. The accountants love it because they have to verify that it has all been done, and the thousands of our fellow citizens who are wandering around the country with certified copies of their passports and a utility bill under their arm beggars belief.
The Government have resisted and resisted a de minimis number, which would mean that when you wish to open a bank account for your godson that you can put £10 into on his birthday, you would not go through the ridiculous performance that we are going through now. I think that the situation has reached a level of fear among the regulated community that is hard to believe. Last week I happened to have a money laundering inquiry. When I left Oxford, I went to work in the United States. I had an inquiry saying, “We see that you worked in the United States in the 1960s. What were you paid?”. That was 50 years ago and I cannot remember. That sort of thing brings the regulatory system into disrepute.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to hear the bilious rants from the other side, with which we on this side have some sympathy. I liked the point about the number of times one has to scan one’s passport into an email in order to prove some point or other. Whatever happened to identity cards?
However, there are serious points relating to these regulations which I welcome and will support as they go through. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the weight or pressure being placed on companies in relation to transparency and the money laundering system more generally. However, that is not the only area where this process came from; as the Minister mentioned, it came from the desire of civil society to have a better handle on how some companies are being operated, as well as from those who wish to invest and from other stakeholders. There is a feeling that the Companies Acts cumulatively perhaps have not kept pace with how people regard the operations of the commercial sectors in the country. Obviously now with LLPs as well, which are not strictly commercial in the business sense but still operate commercially, the ability to have scrutiny is being reduced. It is interesting that the extractives directive and other things have been quoted in support of the need to have this transparency. That better contextualises the situation and I was grateful to the Minister for sketching that out.
That having been said, the point was made that at the end of the day, people will have to operate this in a way that will not be destructive to jobs, the creation of new companies, investment and trade, and these things sometimes do not see it right. Certainly when I began going through these Explanatory Memorandums, piles of which still wait to be destroyed, trees having been cut down all over Europe to create them, it seemed a bit otiose to say the least. On the other hand, these are some of the better Explanatory Memorandums I have seen and I congratulate the department on its work. However, this was difficult to get right. The issues here are complicated and are not factual; with these things we often see that a figure is mechanically put in at one end and comes out at the other, while this is judgment all the way through. I read them with interest and recommend them to those who might have an interest in how this process goes through.
The Minister mentioned this but perhaps it was not brought out as much as it could have been. The Government could have taken a position on this, which is articulated in the EMs, that the regulatory process might not achieve the best result. In the past we on this side have often been critical of the sense of a “voluntarism approach” to many of the problems which we perceive in the commercial world. On this occasion the Government have decided to go with a regulatory structure. It has not been an easy decision but I commend them for the rigour with which they have approached it.
Nevertheless—the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, picked this up—the judgments about what is a significant interest and control in an operation are heavily dependent on interpretations in the fourth and fifth legs of the process. While I listened with interest to what the Minister said about that, I was not entirely convinced that that was picked up either in the documentation we have had or in the wording she used to describe it. I do not think that that is sufficient to hold this back because, as I say, it is a good attempt to try to get it to balance out in a fair way. However, I wondered about the review process because I suspect that this is such a major change in some ways, not in monetary terms and not necessarily in its impact but in the whole way companies relate to the Government and to the wider parts of civil society, that it would be useful to have a pretty firm statement about how this will be seen in practice and whether there will be a formal process. Of course there will be a review, but it would be helpful to have that articulated now. Perhaps the Minister will be able to address that when she comes to respond.
The weakest part of this is the relationship to LLPs. In a sense that sounds very critical but I am not trying to be. LLPs are relatively new in the way we do business and therefore are not perhaps as well exposed as conventional companies. Their instance is largely in the business services and professional area, and it is harder to see quite where the analogues with a board of directors and control for profit is concerned. However, the sense is that the most appropriate way of biting a person with control of an LLP is in the way in which the proceeds of any dissolution would fall, with 25% going to the person deemed to be a person of significant control. That was not perhaps as strong as some of the other measures that apply in the commercial sector, and maybe that could be reflected on before the guidance finally gets published. I suspect that there might be a bit of an issue around that as we go forward, but it would be appropriate for a review provided that it is picked up and it is made clear to people that it will be coming forward.
In summary, I was present during the time the primary legislation went through last year. I was not directly involved in some of the debates around it but I followed them with interest. This is a big change; those who care about some of the actions and activities of companies and have been frustrated in the past because there was a veil behind which it was very difficult to see will feel that this is a step in the right direction. It is not overly bureaucratic but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is right to say, “Hang about—is this really worth all the hassle?”. I personally think that it is, but the questions that need to be asked are: how will you review this, how quickly will that happen and how effective will it be as regards how we might take this forward?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for these regulations and for his kind words about the Explanatory Memorandum. I will make sure they are passed on to those who worked on it. It always helps to thank people when things are good because that leads to yet further good performance. Let us hope that the regulatory structure works. As the noble Lord said, it is a big change, but this is an important new regime for companies and it is critical that the detailed requirements are correct and fit for purpose. Increased transparency about who owns and controls UK companies is important in maintaining the UK’s higher standards of corporate trust. As we have discussed in relation to many different issues recently, having the sunlight of transparency can be an extremely powerful policy weapon, and we as a Government seek to use it in a number of areas.
We have committed to a review: I think that both sets of regulations require the Government to review the costs to business within five years. I note the points that the noble Lord made, in particular in relation to the LLP regulations, and will make sure that we keep an eye on that. I also repeat the hope that other countries will move ahead as we have done with the PSC, because this only works, as in so many areas, if other countries do this as well.
It was a delight to see my noble friend Lord Hodgson returning to the debate. I am grateful for his cautionary warning about perverse effects, which one could write into many areas of regulatory life. As he says, we need the right balance between transparency and privacy. We focus on risk, and the National Crime Agency is fully on board to be involved in the protection assessment process. As an expert in risk assessment, the NCA is well placed to ensure that assessments are consistently applied and protection applications robustly interrogated.
I share my noble friend’s concerns about the operation of the money laundering directive, which I used to speak about when I was on the Back Benches. I am glad to say that the business department and the Treasury are doing work on its application as part of a deregulation review. I very much welcome the chance to have a discussion with him so that his examples can be fed into that work.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for that and will make sure that it is seen by the relevant reviewers. My husband has already provided some examples. He has to look after an elderly aunt—not an obvious money launderer—and has run into the same sorts of difficulties that I am hearing from my noble friend. We need to try to improve things in these areas, which is partly why the work we are doing on the deregulation initiative continues to be very important. The Treasury is in the lead of course on the transposition of the directive, but BIS has responsibility for article 30. The important thing is that the two departments are working together to try to make sure that this is done in a proportionate and sensible way.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked a very good question about the accuracy of data at Companies House and whether we receive complaints about that. Companies House will follow up on all complaints about company information being incorrect or incomplete. My noble friend may be right that there are not that many complaints but it will follow them up. In 80% of cases where there appears to be a breach of the Companies Act, companies correct the information straightaway. Most companies are trustworthy and want to provide the correct data, although there are occasionally errors. Where appropriate, investigations are passed to other enforcement agencies, and the changes we are making here will improve our chances of catching the bad guys.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about capital. My officials considered whether using rights over profit and capital should be part of the approach to identifying the PSCs of the LLPs but, in consultation, business and others told us that this could be difficult conceptually and operationally. As I explained in my opening remarks, the regulations therefore operate on the basis of the closest analogy to owning a share of the company’s capital for LLPs, which would be the right to a share in the LLP’s capital if it were wound up. We will have to see how that goes, as we discussed, and we have the review provision, as I have already explained.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am not asking my noble friend to reply now but can she give us the Government’s considered view as to whether 10 quid gives you the right of access to a limited liability company? Will she also comment on the citizens’ registration service that apparently—I may be completely wrong—enables you to go online and get a company registered with no money-laundering checks at all? It must be a hole in the dam if you set up this elaborate structure but people say, “If you do it this way, you can have no money-laundering checks at all”. I am not asking for a response now but it would be helpful if she could comment on that at some length.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I should like to reflect and write to my noble friend. Obviously, we want to make it easy for people to set up companies. We have had a record level of company creation in this country, and that has been part of the Government’s success over the past few years. I will certainly write to my noble friend and look forward to engaging further with him on this important topic.
Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016.
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument amends regulations concerning the contracts for difference scheme and the capacity market. As noble Lords will be aware, these schemes were introduced as part of the electricity market reform programme introduced in the previous Parliament.
Specifically, a series of technical amendments will be made to the CFD supplier obligation, which is levied on all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain to meet the costs of CFDs, in order to improve its efficiency and transparency. Separately, the instrument will amend the levies that fund the bodies responsible for managing CFD contracts and for managing settlement under the capacity market, which I shall outline to noble Lords now.
The first of these schemes, contracts for difference, or CFDs, encourages investment in low-carbon generation at a lower cost of capital due to the long-term price stabilisation provided under the contracts, which reduce overall costs to consumers of transitioning to a low-carbon generation mix. Then, through the capacity market, regular payments are provided in return for reliable capacity being available when needed, to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to meet demand. A fundamental aspect of both schemes is the competitive auction process for awarding contracts, which drives down costs to consumers.
As noble Lords may be aware, the first CFD allocation round in October 2014 resulted in 25 renewable generation projects being awarded CFDs at a significantly lower cost than would have been achieved through the renewables obligation scheme, which is being phased out. The capacity market auctions were held in 2014 and 2015, with the latest auction securing 46 gigawatts of capacity at a price of £18 per kilowatt per year. A recent transitional auction for demand-side response was also held earlier this year.
Noble Lords will have seen that the Government made an announcement yesterday of 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. We have now launched a consultation on these changes, and in due course will be taking final decisions and will present revised regulations.
However, the regulations we are considering today have a different purpose, and in them the Government are simply looking to make several minor amendments to the payment arrangements in order to improve the efficiency with which CFD costs are recovered from electricity suppliers, which will ultimately reduce costs to consumers, and to set the rates for the operational levies relating to both schemes. In order to implement these amendments, three sets of regulations will need to be amended by this instrument. Subject to the will of Parliament, these changes are due to come into force by 1 April 2016.
Before we commence the debate, I will describe these amendments briefly. First, the Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendments) Regulations 2016 amend the instrument that established the CFD supplier obligation mechanism in order to improve its efficiency. As I outlined earlier, the CFD supplier obligation is levied on all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain to meet the costs of CFDs. It is set on a quarterly basis by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, a government-owned company that acts as the counterparty to CFD contracts. The supplier obligation is comprised of a levy which is paid on every unit of supply, and a reserve amount. The levy and reserve amount are calculated based on forecasts of payments to CFD generators. These supplier payments are then reconciled against actual payments following the end of every quarter.
This instrument makes a number of minor and technical amendments to improve the efficiency and transparency of the supplier obligation. They are designed to minimise costs both to suppliers and ultimately to consumers. The most significant of these amendments amend, first, the calculation of the levy that is paid by electricity suppliers so that it is a better estimate of suppliers’ actual liabilities. Secondly, they allow this levy to be reduced without notice in circumstances where the Low Carbon Contracts Company considers that electricity suppliers are likely to pay significantly more than they need to. Thirdly, they improve the transparency of CFD costs in the future by requiring the Low Carbon Contracts Company to forecast CFD costs for at least 12 months ahead and to publish the date that each generator is expected to start receiving CFD payments.
These changes were the subject of a public consultation and received a largely favourable response. We estimate that when combined with further regulations that the Government intend to lay in due course, they will reduce the costs to consumers of CFDs by approximately £38 million over the period 2016 to 2020. The Government intend to lay further regulations in due course as not all of the proposals consulted on are being implemented by this instrument due to cost and their impact on the CFD settlement system.
The second objective to be delivered through this instrument is to set a revised operational cost levy for the Low Carbon Contracts Company and to set a revised settlement costs levy for the Electricity Settlements Company, the company responsible for transactions relating to the capacity market. The increases to the budgets of both companies reflect the operational requirements and objectives of the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company in 2016-17. Both levies were subject to public consultation, allowing the opportunity for scrutiny of the key assumptions in the budgets and, importantly, to ensure that they continue to represent value for money for consumers.
Finally, before we start the debate, I would like to assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to evaluate and monitor the measures introduced under electricity market reform to ensure that they remain effective and continue to represent value for money. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations. As he rightly says, they are mostly technical in nature and do not impact on policy to any large degree. The ESO regulations around the CFD counterparty to raise funds are largely operational and, quite understandably, are likely to be subject to amendment through operational experience in order to improve efficiency and increase transparency with a view to reducing the costs of the scheme for suppliers and their consumers.
All the amendments included in the regulations appear sensible and come with a very large acceptance on the part of stakeholders, both through consultation responses and through discussions at a stakeholder event in October last year. The main amendments are largely financial and will lead to changes between the balance of funding moving more towards the interim levy and away from the reserve payments. Notice periods for changing the interim levy rate will become more flexible, deadlines will become more helpful, and generally information, data and recognition of commercial sensitivities will improve the scheme’s operations. Within the structure of the scheme, that is commendable.
However, seeing the details of its workings, the CFD counterparty mechanism struck me as somewhat cumbersome. While I am sure that there are unlikely to be major changes to the structure, nevertheless the Minister might enlighten the Committee about why the scheme is set up with quarterly contributions to reserve funds and a yearly operational costs levy for the capacity market settlement body.
I understand the reasoning behind setting up the CFD counterparty in relation to Treasury implications and as the mechanism through which CFDs will be administered and paid, but I understand that suppliers strongly urged the Government to allow the CFD counterparty to operate a working capital model for funding cash flow and building reserves as a more commercial way to operate. Surplus levies could then be rolled into subsequent levy periods to smooth out volatility of payment. Can the Minister confirm whether reserves and operational cash flow costs are to be reconciled to suppliers every year and balanced?
In the reconsiderations of the scheme, did the Minister’s department put any thought into whether working capital arrangements at a marginal cost to public borrowing requirements could be less cumbersome and less costly to operate? In trying to widen and increase the pool of supply participants, are the Government confident that the costs on small independent suppliers are not constraining their participation? I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the CFD counterparty body will be audited, but are there other operational cost checks on the operation of the body?
Perhaps I may widen my remarks beyond the supplier obligation to CFDs in general for a moment. I take the opportunity today to ask the Minister whether the Government will set any technology requirements or specific exclusions for participants in the next auction. I am thinking here of onshore wind and solar technologies. Can the Minister confirm that they will still be allowed to participate so that these technologies can develop and generators will have a continuing route to market for returns on their investments? With the challenge of climate change and the changes required of the UK energy market, we wish to be technology neutral.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, and I want to comment on these documents.
It is extremely helpful to have had the Minister’s clear explanation. Of course, congratulating a Minister means that you are then going to use the word “but”, and that I intend to do. One problem is that the public find all these matters impenetrable. I recognise that they are technically very complex, but I ask the Minister to seek better ways of explaining the system to a wider range of people. I spend a lot of my time doing that, and I hope that I get it right, but one of our difficulties in trying to convince people of the battle that we face on climate change is that many of the arguments are not easy to understand. Therefore, a constant desire to try to explain what we are doing and how it works in language which normal people can understand is very important. I do not expect, and I am sure that no one here would say, that the statutory instruments here will advance that cause. However, I do not want us to miss the opportunity of saying that what the Minister has so clearly said really needs to be said more widely, because there are many for whom difficulty arises simply because they do not understand.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the contributors to this important debate. I am grateful for the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lord Deben. I will deal with the points in the order in which they were raised, turning first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
The point about the organisation of the levy and the fact that we are looking at it in terms of supplier obligation is for the precise reason he hinted at, that we did not want to put a pressure on the public purse. That is why it is funded in the way it is and why we looked at the working capital method but decided that it was not good value for the public or the consumer, so the obligation here, as the noble Lord knows, is placed on the supplier. While I appreciate that the marginal cost might not be that great, he will know that the approach of the Government is to bear down on unnecessary costs on the public purse as much as possible, and we felt that this was one.
The noble Lord also asked a question about the review, and he is absolutely right: there will be an audit process. He also asked whether reserves are reconciled at the end of each quarter. Yes, they are, as the operational costs will be at the end of each year; that is absolutely right. Therefore the key principle is that it is an industry-funded system. I thank him very much for the largely warm support he gave to this, and as I say, the essence of this—I am not very often able to do this—is that it saves money for the consumer and at the same time maintains the principle of ensuring that we look at renewables as a large part of the way we are driving forward our policy on decarbonisation. We will of course keep it under review.
On the points raised by my noble friend Lord Deben, indeed I was fearful as soon as he said that he thought that I made a very good job of presenting the case because I knew that something would come along as the sting in the tail. However, he made some fair points. I understand what he said about the legislation sometimes being impenetrable. Of course that is not confined to this area; I can well remember taking the pension schemes legislation through the House of Lords, which was certainly at least as obscure and probably more so. However, the point is well made, and there is a constant battle between trying to ensure that what is necessarily a technical piece of legislation is at least to some extent reconciled with a degree of clarity. I struggle as much as anyone else sometimes to understand exactly what we are doing. We want to take people with us, so it is important that we ensure that we put the case across in very plain and simple ways.
I welcome what my noble friend said about the need to be flexible and to do what we are doing as cheaply and reasonably as possible—that is very much part of the Government’s intention. That was set out in plain language by the Secretary of State when she presented her reset speech. In that speech she set out clearly what we are doing with regard to the CFD auctions, and of course one will be held towards the end of 2016. Pot 2 will ensure that it is open to new technologies and we will come forward with more details on that in due course. But as noble Lords would expect from a Government that are committed to a market approach, again as was made clear in the reset speech, obviously we want to deliver the best solution in terms of decarbonisation in the most affordable way while of course maintaining security of supply. These are the three aims of the department, and as I say they were set out very clearly in the reset speech.
I can reassure my noble friend Lord Deben that we are looking at these issues in terms of value for money with the innovation budget and the budget we have at large. He will know that we are looking, for example, at tidal lagoons across the piece to see if they can possibly deliver part of the mix in a value-for-money way. So that is very much the approach. I agree with what my noble friend said at the end of his contribution about the importance of going forward together across parties, and indeed not just parties. Earlier this afternoon I met Archbishop Gallagher from the Holy See, and we are grateful for what faith leaders, and not least the holy father, are doing in relation to promoting the importance of climate change and stressing how it affects the world at large and the most vulnerable. This is not limited to political parties and I think that we in the United Kingdom, without being complacent, have been adept at building a broad coalition on the need to move forward on decarbonisation across parties and beyond parties. I very much welcome that; in fairness it was evident in Paris in how opposition parties reacted and expressed their support, and in other ways too. I would certainly associate myself and the Government with what was said there.
If there is anything I have missed, it will be picked up and I will write to noble Lords, but with that I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be aware that the immigration health charge was introduced in April last year by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, with the aim of ensuring that temporary migrants make a fair and proportionate contribution to the NHS services available to them in a manner in line with their immigration status. The charge is paid by non-European Economic Area temporary migrants who apply for a visa for more than six months or who apply to extend their stay in the UK, and is set at a competitive level of £200 per annum and at a discounted rate of £150 per annum for students. The charge is refunded where an immigration application is refused, rejected or withdrawn.
The Government estimate that the charge could raise as much as £1.7 billion at present value over 10 years. This represents an important new source of income for the NHS, income that is shared between the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and spent as they see fit. The charge has already been shown to be highly successful, collecting more than £100 million in its first six months of operation for the NHS.
Those who pay the charge and who are subsequently granted entry clearance or leave to remain receive NHS care in the same way as a permanent resident, subject to the same clinical need and waiting times, as long as their leave is still valid. They pay only charges that a UK resident would also be expected to pay, such as dentistry and prescription charges in England. The exemptions to the charge are listed in Schedule 2 to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 and include visitors and certain vulnerable groups. Also exempted are nationals of Australia and New Zealand, which leads us to the purpose of today’s debate.
The Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order removes the exemption from the charge for Australian and New Zealand nationals. It also reduces the amount of the charge for youth mobility scheme applicants from £200 to £150 per annum, in line with students. It also makes a minor and technical change that updates the reference in the 2015 order to the part of the Immigration Rules that relate to visitors. Australian and New Zealand nationals have benefited from a one-year exemption from the charge, and this order ensures that there will be equal treatment for all non-EEA nationals.
The UK, Australia and New Zealand all face the challenges of increasing healthcare costs and the management of migration flows. We regularly discuss these challenges with Australia and New Zealand, and have held consultations with them on the charge since 2013. The Secretary of State for Health confirmed our intention to introduce the charge with his Australian and New Zealand counterparts in December.
We greatly value our close relationships with Australia and New Zealand, and remain committed to strengthening the relations between our countries. For this reason we are retaining the reciprocal healthcare agreements for short-term migrants from Australia and New Zealand coming to the UK for a period of less than six months. These agreements provide that short-term migrants to the UK from Australia and New Zealand are entitled to some NHS treatment free of charge. In turn, this is broadly reciprocated when our citizens go there.
The application of the health charge to nationals of Australia and New Zealand is compatible with the terms of our reciprocal healthcare agreements, as these reciprocal agreements do not apply to the longer-term, temporary migrants who will fall within the scope of the charge.
I will also comment on the application of the health charge to Australian and New Zealand nationals. First, the health charge is set well below the true cost to the NHS of treating temporary migrants. For example, non-EEA temporary workers who are here for more than 12 months have a weighted average cost to the NHS of just over £800 per head per year.
Secondly, Australian and New Zealand migrants who come to the UK for a short stay, including tourists, will not pay the health charge. In 2014, nearly 70% of the total number of Australian and New Zealand nationals who came to the UK came as visitors. This group will continue to benefit from the reciprocal healthcare agreements we hold with these countries, which entitle them to free-of-charge NHS care for health conditions that arise during their stay and which require immediate or prompt attention.
Thirdly, and outside the terms of our reciprocal healthcare agreements, we do not charge Australian and New Zealand nationals for the use of any NHS primary care services such as GP or nurse consultations; nor do we charge for treatment in an accident and emergency department. The NHS also provides free-of-charge care to those with certain infectious diseases and, in England, to victims of certain types of violence.
Fourthly, and in recognition of the UK’s close and important links with Australia and New Zealand, we are reducing the amount of the health charge that applies to the youth mobility scheme from £200 to £150. The youth mobility scheme is a cultural exchange programme which allows young people aged 18 to 30 from participating countries and territories to experience life in the UK for up to two years. This is the category used by more than half of Australian and New Zealand nationals applying to come to the UK for more than six months, who would consequently be liable to pay the health charge. Young people of all nationalities eligible to enter the UK under the youth mobility scheme will benefit from this reduced health charge rate, not just those from Australia and New Zealand.
We place great value on the strong relationships that we have with Australia and New Zealand, but the UK, like New Zealand and Australia, faces the challenges of increasing healthcare costs and managing migration flows. It is therefore right that temporary migrants from these two countries should now contribute to the extensive and high-quality range of NHS services available to them, in line with temporary migrants from all other non-European Economic Area countries. We estimate that the changes set out in the order will result in additional income of £41 million for the NHS in present value over five years, in 2016-17 prices. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have been fully consulted on the charge and I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction and explanation of the purpose of the order. I suppose that neither of us this evening will have to go through the experience of having to address a packed meeting of the Committee.
The Immigration Act 2014, as the noble Lord said, enabled the Secretary of State to provide by order for an immigration health charge to be applied to those seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK for a limited period. The charge was introduced in April last year through an order. This order now amends that order—the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015—by reducing from £200 to £150 the immigration health charge payable by youth mobility scheme applicants and it removes the exemption from the immigration health charge available to nationals of Australia and New Zealand. The changes are intended to take effect from early next month.
As the Minister said, the immigration health charge of £200 annually and £150 for students is payable by non-EEA nationals who enter the UK for more than six months in a temporary capacity or who apply to extend their stay in the UK. Those who pay the charge can access NHS services free of charge to the same extent as UK residents. Nationals from Australia and New Zealand were exempt from paying the charge pending further consideration of reciprocal healthcare arrangements, and it has now been agreed that the immigration health charge should be applied to nationals of Australia and New Zealand to bring them into line with other non-European Economic Area nationals. We will not oppose that amendment to the 2015 order, but I have a couple of points to raise.
First, can the Minister say whether these amendments will have any impact on present charges for healthcare paid, or not having to be paid, by UK citizens in Australia and New Zealand, and, if so, in what way? I raise this point in the context of the Government’s statement in the Commons debate on this order that the Department of Health has entered into discussion with Australia and New Zealand on the scope of reciprocal healthcare agreements.
The Minister referred to the fact that the £200 did not cover the NHS costs incurred in respect of those paying the charge. While we agree with the principle that people should make a fair contribution to the costs, we asked in the Commons debate what proportion of people paying the immigration health charge levy were in fact in work and making a contribution to the NHS through the taxes and national insurance that they pay. For people in this category, what is the net cost of their use of the NHS once their taxes and national insurance payments are taken into account? I do not think that the answer to that question is contained within the Explanatory Memorandum, although I say that with some hesitation, as I cannot say that I have necessarily understood all the figures in that document. That is not a criticism of it, by the way. It would be helpful if the Minister could, either now or subsequently, provide a response to the questions that I have raised.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for indicating his support, as did the Opposition in the other place a couple of days ago. I am also grateful for his questions. The noble Lord asked whether there were any new charges within the reciprocal arrangement as a result of the immigration health charge that has been brought in. The answer is no, to my knowledge. However, as the noble Lord mentioned, the reciprocal health charge is being reviewed partly as a result of this charge. It is not so much a direct causal link, but in negotiating and discussing the immigration health charge with the relevant two countries, it was decided that, in view of the fact that the reciprocal health charge is 30 years old, it would be suitable to look at it again. The Department of Health is currently doing that.
There are charges within the reciprocal health agreement. There are different charges for Australians and New Zealanders here as opposed to UK citizens in Australia and New Zealand. For example, Australia levies a health charge for certain categories of visa applicants, including older migrants applying to become permanent residents. Students are required to have health insurance while in Australia. There is a consultation fee for anyone in New Zealand accessing GP care. These things will be reviewed in the next few months. The Department of Health intends to work with both countries over the next year to clarify those terms.
The noble Lord also asked about the number of migrants who work here, pay taxes here and contribute to the NHS. He also asked, as did the Opposition spokesman in the other place, about the net cost to the NHS once those taxes are taken into account. I do not have the details to hand, but I will write to him with them. However, I point out that, of the Australians and New Zealanders who come here, 70% come as visitors, so the charge does not apply to them anyway. I can tell him that for Australians, in the year to September 2015—this is not the net figure but in terms of those working—22,333 visas were issued, of which 15,284 were work visas, tier 5 or tier 2, which is about 68%. For New Zealanders, it is roughly 69%. There were 8,104 visas issued, of which 5,606 were working visas. This includes the youth mobility scheme, which allows young people to work for up to two years. However, I will look at the figures in detail and write to him.
I think that I have covered most of the questions that the noble Lord asked, and I stress once again that we greatly value our relationships with Australia and New Zealand, which is one reason why we maintain the reciprocal healthcare arrangements. We have no intention of removing them. In fact, they will be the only ones left by the end of the year. On that basis, I commend the orders to the Committee.
House of Lords
Pharmacies: Funding
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that every community continues to be served by a local pharmacy, in the light of their plans to cut funding to pharmacies in October.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, community pharmacies are a vital part of the NHS. The Government believe efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive. We are consulting on a pharmacy access scheme which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Has he made any assessment of the value of the services provided by pharmacies to the NHS, local communities and local authorities in assisting with their public health responsibilities? In light of the importance of all these services and the potential for expansion in future, is it not rather arbitrary of the Government to make these cuts that I understand could cause the closure of 3,000 pharmacies? Then they will sit back and wait for the survival of the economic fittest.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, it is important that we recognise the fundamental changes happening in the market that community pharmacies operate in. With the growth of online ordering of prescriptions, the large-scale automation of dispensing and the integration of health services within which community pharmacies are absolutely vital, the industry will have to change.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, have the Government rural-proofed this policy? Has detailed thinking gone into how people without transport in remote rural communities can access pharmacies for their local, possibly life-saving medicines? I am sure that there are solutions to be had in IT and so on, but has that thinking and even understanding gone into the process?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raises an important point. There is no doubt that community pharmacies are vital to all people, but particularly to those living in isolated rural communities. There will be a pharmacy access fund based around isolation and local health needs of the population. We are consulting with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee over that issue at the moment. I assure the noble Lord that we are fully aware of the issue he raises.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s plans will squeeze all pharmacies, resulting in the closure of the least-viable ones—which are often in the poorest districts where they cannot easily diversify. Why do the Government not undertake a means assessment to find out which pharmacies are essential? Closing pharmacies will put even greater pressure on overworked GPs.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I assure my noble friend that not all pharmacies will be squeezed equally, as he put it. A pharmacy access fund will ensure that greater resources go to those pharmacies which serve isolated communities in rural areas, and a pharmacy integration fund will ensure that we encourage pharmacies to work more closely with primary care.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister consider that prisons are communities? If he does, will he give the House an assurance that the NHS pharmacies operating in prisons will not face any cuts because, as I understand it, the pharmacies in some prisons are far below the required standard? Can we be given an assurance that they will be exempt from any cuts?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raises a very important issue. I do not have the answer to his question. If it is all right with him, I will investigate the matter and write to him.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, we should get out of the habit of shouting “This side” when we are on our feet. I suggest that the Cross Benches would like to go next.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, has the Minister considered the relationship between hospital pharmacies and local community pharmacies? At a hospital I know well 56 people are discharged every day. However, they cannot be discharged until their prescriptions are ready from the hospital pharmacy. As people wait up to four hours, beds are blocked 56 times for four hours while they wait. A closer link—which exists in one or two areas—between the two types of pharmacy might remedy that situation. Has the Minister any plans to look at that issue?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. There are many delayed discharges from hospital because people are waiting for their medications and many hospitals do not have the automation within their in-house pharmacies to meet the demand to which she refers. The big driving force going through healthcare and community pharmacy today is one of integration, which means that community pharmacies must in future work more closely with their local hospitals and GPs.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, we all have heard what the Minister has to say, but is not the Government’s policy totally inconsistent in that community pharmacists are being encouraged to do more but, as these drastic cuts are being put into effect, they can only do less?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I think the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. Interestingly, 40% of all community pharmacies are in clusters of more than three within 10 minutes’ walk. There has been a proliferation in the numbers of community pharmacies at a time when we want a deeper integration of community pharmacy with primary care in particular.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, talking about the services which pharmacies provide, when do the Government plan seriously to regulate and inspect pharmacies with a view to making sure that their patient record-keeping and consultation facilities for patients are appropriate to the high standards of patient confidentiality which we insist on in every other aspect of the NHS?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raises an important point which I regret I cannot answer. I will have to write to him on that matter. However, for community pharmacy to play the important role in primary care that we expect it to do, it will have to have access to integrated patient records. The confidentiality that surrounds those records is very important.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is all very well but will the noble Lord confirm that one of the ideas of his department is for doctors to prescribe medicines for a longer period so that fewer trips are made to the pharmacy, thereby compensating for the closure of up to 3,000 pharmacies? However, is he aware that it is estimated that £300 million-worth of medicines are wasted every year? I understand that a third of that is in medicines that are never opened by patients. Surely it is not cost-effective to extend the length of the prescription time because all you will do is add to wastage of medicines.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, there is no intention to extend the prescription time just for the sake of it. But there are many people who have stable long-term conditions, for whom a 90-day prescription period might be appropriate. We are not saying that all prescriptions should be for that length of time but some of them might be.
Railways: Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink Franchises
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the performance of the Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink rail franchises, and what steps they intend to take to ensure that passengers on those routes receive an improved service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, customers on these parts of the rail network need to see improved services. There are problems that are being fixed. However, Govia Thameslink Railway—GTR—Southeastern and Network Rail still have to do much better when it comes to fixing faults and communicating with their passengers. The Government are determined to reduce crowding and improve the passenger experience, which is why we are investing in the multibillion-pound Thameslink programme that is due to complete in 2018.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am glad the Minister agrees that customers are not getting the service they deserve. Thameslink and Southeastern have commuter satisfaction down at 68% and Southern at 70%. The disruption at London Bridge has not helped but it is only part of the problem. As the Minister says, the operators need to do better. Do the Government intend to terminate franchises early if there is no significant improvement in performance? Does the Minister agree that punctuality and reliability are more likely to improve if train companies are penalised financially and automatically required to compensate all affected passengers, based on a more generous compensation scheme?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I acknowledge the challenges and issues that have arisen, particularly with these two franchises. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are determined to hold those operating the franchises to account. That is why my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Rail, Claire Perry, meets the operators, together with the ORR, on a monthly basis to ensure that the requirements of the franchise are being met.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, my friends in Elstree and Borehamwood are never happy when I am on the Thameslink platform because, when I am there, there is always a delay or cancellation. Will the Minister support the action of the MP for Hertsmere, Oliver Dowden, in his campaign to get Thameslink to provide a much better service for the people of Hertsmere, who pay a lot of money to be packed like sardines in an often-late train?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure my noble friend that the delays are not down to his presence on the platform, as he brings to our attention the delays that we are seeing on these lines. As I have already said, the Government are committed both to holding those operating these franchises to account and to ensuring that, yes, there is greater investment. That is why the Government have committed to the investment of more than £1 billion in the improvements at London Bridge and beyond, and we are committed to ensure that by 2018 these improvements are felt by commuters. He is quite right to point out that the current service is not good enough.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As one of those weekly commuters from Bognor Regis to Westminster, I also have my tale to tell. I only just made it in on time on Monday, having sat on three separate trains before one left the station, and along with other commuters was shunted from one platform to another three times just to get on a train that worked. Go-Ahead, the parent company that owns the franchise, reported an increase in profits of more than 30% last year. Can the Minister tell us why this money is not being invested to improve services for passengers but instead is going into shareholders’ pockets?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Investment is going into these franchises. There are three new fleets of electric trains, which will see an overall increase of 50% in capacity. Within the wider franchise, new trains will be introduced on the Gatwick Express later this year. But the noble Baroness is quite right to point out that the challenges remain. As I have already assured the House, the Government are working very closely not just with those who are operating these franchises but the Office of Rail Regulation to ensure that the challenges are met and the franchisees are held accountable.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, would the Government give some consideration to a restoration in the longer term of the vertical link so that “Notwork” Rail and the rail operating companies have one board of directors coming together to solve the problems, instead of blaming each other?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I note the reference that my noble friend made—I am sure he meant Network Rail. As noble Lords will be aware, we have appointed Sir Peter Hendy to look at Network Rail’s operations and we are working closely together, as many delays on these lines—my noble friend is quite right to point out—are because of Network Rail-related issues and are not down to the franchisee.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Minister being so tough about these things. Two weeks ago, my wife was on a Southeastern train to Ramsgate. When the train stopped, the doors opened, a woman tried to get out and the doors shut on her. She managed to extricate herself and the train took off—all within about 30 seconds—lugging my wife and 13 other people to Broadstairs, where there was no one to help them or advise them on how to get back to Ramsgate.
The concern that Go-Ahead, the parent company of Southeastern, has for the health and safety and convenience of its passengers can perhaps be demonstrated by the fact that I have rung it three times and have, so far, received absolutely no response. From what we have heard already today, this is not an isolated occurrence of its insouciance towards its passengers. Will the Minister agree to meet me and any other noble Lords with concerns about this company to discuss what can be done to improve its performance?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I will add my name to that list. Southern is absolutely dedicated to reducing service to customers in all possible ways. Its first action when it took up the franchise was to abolish tea trolleys; its latest action is to abolish ticket offices, even though the ticket machines will not offer the best price and are extremely hard to use. Will the Government please take this franchise to task and either abolish it or make it better?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure my noble friend that we are of course holding those operating the franchises to task, as I have already said in your Lordships’ House. If they do not deliver, they will be held to account. We are going to see the completion of the investment by the end of 2018 and I think that that will be the real challenge and test of how efficient these franchises are.
Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect disabled people and victims of domestic violence from the effects of the under-occupancy charge.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
We have already taken steps to protect disabled people and victims of domestic violence by providing local authorities with £560 million in discretionary housing payment funding since 2011. A further £870 million of discretionary housing payment will be provided over the next five years, which will allow local authorities to make long-term or indefinite awards so that people in difficult situations such as these are protected.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Government are spending a quarter of a million pounds appealing two bedroom-tax cases in the Supreme Court this week: one from a rape victim who had had a panic room installed by the police and the other from a family caring for their severely disabled grandson. I intuit that the Minister will not want to comment on the cases specifically, but he mentioned discretionary housing payments, which are always the Government’s defence when the bedroom tax comes up. But the Government’s own evaluation found that a third of people hit by the bedroom tax did not even know that the payments existed. Can the Minister tell the House what he is doing to improve the situation for disabled people and rape victims and how people will know about the discretionary housing payments?
Lord Freud
To start with, roughly 40% of people knew about the discretionary housing payments—that figure has now increased to 66%, I think. So there is information out there. I thank the noble Baroness for making the point that the Supreme Court is looking at this area right at this moment—today; I am necessarily more circumscribed than normal in some of what I can say on this area in the next few minutes.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, have the Government thought of changing the law so that the partners or spouses of disabled people who are also their carers would be eligible to have the spare room—which is often needed for very bulky items such as hoists, wheelchairs and so on, as well as a bed—so that the carer, who is the husband, wife or family member, may have what one might call respite sleeping?
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness has put her finger on a Supreme Court issue, which I will just have to duck today.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, if it turns out that the funds available to local authorities, which the Minister mentioned, are in fact inadequate to meet the defined needs of disabled people and others who should come within their orbit, will the Government make more funds available?
Lord Freud
We keep this under review and, as I said, we have increased the amount quite substantially for the next five-year period. Currently, local authorities have been somewhat underspending and we get a small return of the money that they do not spend. The bulk of local authorities, at the halfway point of the current financial year, have been spending under 50% of their allocation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, two-fifths of local authorities whose policies are online make it clear that payment is short term, while nearly a third specify a fixed period for discretionary housing payments. The Minister’s own evaluation report warned that,
“this funding is by its nature short term and offers tenants little certainty over their future”,
which is particularly relevant to disabled people and domestic violence victims. How much longer will the Minister pray in aid discretionary housing payments to justify an unjustifiable policy?
Lord Freud
On the noble Baroness’s first point, we have made it absolutely clear in our guidance that these can be longer-term payments. One thing that we have done by having a five-year settlement is to give local authorities the confidence to make longer-term payments. The guidance in the manual says that,
“it may be more appropriate to make a long term award in cases where a claimant’s circumstances are unlikely to change, and making a short term award will cause them undue distress”.
We have recognised the exact point that the Baroness makes.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, is it the case that current regulations allow for an additional bedroom for a disabled adult who requires overnight care but not for a disabled child in a similar situation? If that is the case, is that fair?
Lord Freud
I will have to repeat the answer that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
Can I take the Minister back to the first question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about panic rooms? His answer was that there is information out there but when someone has had a panic room installed through a sanctuary scheme, there is a clearly defined problem. It seems that we need to find some way to make sure that that advice automatically gets to them. Has the Minister considered any way in which we can encourage local authorities to have a duty to give that information about the discretionary housing payments?
Lord Freud
The information on this is disseminated. When people are written to, informing them that they are subject to the removal of the spare room subsidy, the information is made available to them on that occasion. Awareness of that is growing.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Given the well-known problems in housing with rentals and finding accommodation, have the Government given any thought to extending their policy on the underoccupancy charge to the private sector?
Lord Freud
The way that this was introduced was to replicate what happens in the private sector, where the LHA does exactly that: it provides the family with what they require. The removal of the spare room subsidy brings the same system into the social sector as was introduced into the private sector by the very party that the noble Lord sits in.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, two-thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax have a disability. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of those people affected—the two-thirds—are actually receiving discretionary housing awards? The money does not stretch to them.
Lord Freud
I have gone through these figures before. When you look at the numbers of disabled people who are subject to the spare room policy, 63% of the original number were disabled on a DDA basis but, by the time you take it on to the higher rate DLA basis, the figure was down to 17%.
Asylum: Processing of Applications
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the amount of training required by employees on temporary contracts who process asylum applications, including gap-year students.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, all members of staff who make decisions in asylum cases, whether on temporary contracts or otherwise, receive the same level of training. This includes a dedicated five-week foundation training programme that includes training on international and domestic law and safeguarding issues.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the decisions that people dealing with asylum applications have to take are very sensitive and complex. Would the Minister agree that they require skills such as critical analysis, sensitivity and maturity? Is it appropriate for young people—by definition students, as referred to in the Observer article—to be taking such decisions? Is there likely to be an extra cost to the Government from incorrect decisions being taken by people who do not have those attributes?
Lord Bates
I can understand the concern, because these are very sensitive issues that people are being asked to deal with. But I can reassure the noble Baroness that out of the 290 decision-makers currently looking at cases, two are undergraduates in law. Under this scheme we have often looked in particular at people who have an interest in law—perhaps with the possibility of their coming in to become decision-makers in future—who might get some experience doing that. They have their induction course with all of that but, crucially, they also have mentoring. An experienced person must sign off on all decisions taken by that individual. That is a very important safeguard which I hope will reassure noble Lords.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, as a teacher of Islamic law in Strasbourg, I can tell noble Lords that even post-doctoral students take a very long time to understand the complexities of notions such as rights, entitlement, duty and obligations, which are very different from current secular or Christian laws. I am not sure that five weeks is quite enough for people to grasp that knowledge, as well as having the social abilities to know what the facilities are. It is multi-tasking.
Lord Bates
The short answer, of course, is that it is not enough—and, of course, that five weeks is then followed up by a period of at least six months when they receive close mentoring and all their decisions are checked. Also, in the cases that the noble Baroness mentioned, when there are areas of particular sensitivity, when people have been victims of torture or violence, or where there are LGBTI issues, there is also the provision of a second pair of eyes, which means that, even when an experienced person has done the evaluation, another experienced person will look at it. Of course, in the extreme situation that that person disagrees with the finding of the decision-making officer, they and their legal advisers will have the opportunity to appeal.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
What is the position regarding the phone helplines that we discussed with regard to the Immigration Bill this week? Is the same type of education or training given to people whatever phone line they work on—health or immigration? How qualified are they? Are they like insurance companies, which have a list of answers, and if you ask a question outside the list they have no answer? I do not think that we got an answer on that from the Minister the other day.
Lord Bates
I am trying to remember the immigration phone line to which the noble Baroness refers. I assume that she means the right-to-rent checks, for which there is a helpline charged at local rates. That is simply just to check immigration status. It is almost a binary issue of whether the person is legally entitled to be here or not. We think that it can probably be dealt with at that level.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I understand that students may well be able to carry out clerical functions connected with processing, but will the Minister assure the House that they are never in a position to conduct the substantive interviews on which essential decisions depend?
Lord Bates
If they have the qualifications and the mentoring in place, they can undertake those interviews. It is very important to say that their work is overseen by the independent chief inspector. When he looked at this, he found that the decision-makers were professional and dedicated and demonstrated commitment to fairness. Perhaps it might also be of interest to noble Lords to visit the office in Croydon—I can arrange that—to see the type of people who are undertaking these very important decisions.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, this department is not the only one which is employing temporary staff to deal with complex problems. The subject of this Question is not a problem that is going to go away quickly. Who knows how many years it will be before the number of asylum seekers declines seriously? It is appalling that we have this situation. It is similar in HMRC with temporary staff. It is quite disgraceful. There has to be some reason why the Government are doing this rather than establishing posts.
Lord Bates
The reason we are doing it is to ensure that people get crucial decisions as quickly as possible. When we inherited this system, we had a backlog of 400,000 pre-2007 cases. Everyone was rightly expressing concern about that. That was why we needed to bring in people who could work through that backlog. The backlog has gone. We now have professional standards of six months for simple cases and one year for more complex cases. This is not like other areas where you get a seasonal flow, such as with passports or student visas. Because of events in Syria, there is currently a 29% increase in the level of applications. So it is very difficult to manage, and the people who are doing it are doing it in a very professional, effective and sensitive way.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
There we go; saved by the bell.
State Pension Age
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has today made the following Statement.
“Yesterday we announced the appointment of John Cridland to lead an independent review of the state pension age. The review will make recommendations for the Government to consider to ensure the future state pension age is fair and affordable in the long term. The review will report by May 2017. I want to stress that the review is independently led and evidence-led. It will be evidence put forward to John Cridland to consider in his important considerations about the state pension. The review will consider changes in life expectancy, as well as wider changes in society.
It is also useful at this point to remind the House why this kind of review is necessary. In 1945, a man, for example, retiring at 65 had a life expectancy of between 60 and 63. Men rose from 14.27 years in retirement after their pension age to 27 years under the present forecast and existing timescales, and women have gone from 18 years in retirement after their pensionable age to 29.5 years in retirement.
Future generations will rightly expect that we reflect those changes in how we set the pension. It is right that pensions should reflect these changes in life expectancy. Future generations will not thank us if we do nothing and do not have the courage to ensure pensions are sustainable to avoid them picking up the bill.
I want to make clear what this review is not. It will not cover the existing state pension age timetable up to April 2028. We have already provided legislation for this, and the review will not look to change the state pension age up to this point. The Labour Government first legislated for state pension rises beyond 65, but without any commitment to an independent review. When we brought forward the Pensions Bill in 2013, Labour seemed to have a change of heart. They agreed with us about the need for a regular independent review of the state pension age. The shadow Secretary of State at the time, the honourable Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill, said:
“The Secretary of State and I have no difference of opinion on the need regularly to review the state pension age”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/13; col. 661.]
So, that is what we are doing. Under that legislation, we are required to appoint an independent reviewer who will make recommendations to him on future state pension age arrangements. We have appointed John Cridland to lead this work. Under the legislation, we are required to report in 2017 on this, and that is what we will do.
This review is part of the Government’s reforms to pensions to ensure they are affordable for the long term. But it is right that we recognise those who have reached their pension age, who have worked hard, done the right thing and provided for their families. We are delivering for them. As a result of our triple lock, pensioners will be receiving a basic state pension over £1,100 higher a year than they were at the start of the last Parliament. We are providing greater security, more choice and dignity for people in retirement, while also ensuring the system is sustainable for the future”.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for repeating the Statement delivered in the other place. One of the matters that has characterised this Government’s approach to pensions—changes to both the state and private pensions—has been the lamentable approach to communicating change. This has manifested itself in the frustrations of the WASPI group; the misunderstandings over why only a minority of those retiring after 5 April this year will receive the full rate of the new state pension of £155 per week; and issues arising from the so-called new flexibilities.
What assurance will the Minister give about not repeating the mistakes of the past when the review that is being undertaken brings forward its recommendations? The terms of reference require consideration of what a suitable state pension age is in the immediate future and over the longer term. However, the government press release states—this is what the noble Baroness said—that the review will be focused on the longer term and will not cover the existing timetable to April 2028. So can the Minister please reconcile these two positions? It is a classic case of confused communication which fuels speculation about the Government’s true intent.
Do we take it that there is no intention of revisiting with some transitional relief the position of those in their mid-50s who are adamant that they received inadequate notice of the rise in their state pension age?
The review has to take a view on how changes to state pension age rises support affordability. I ask therefore whether the triple-lock is within its scope.
We accepted the 2014 provision which required a periodic review of the pension age. We know that life expectancy is generally increasing, but we know that this does not always equate to healthy years of life. We know also that health inequalities remain stubbornly persistent. How does the Minister consider that these factors should be reflected in a fair approach to the pension age? Can the review cover an assessment of the adequacy of social security arrangements for those who cannot sustain work before reaching an extended pension age?
We wish John Cridland well with his review: transparency, consultation and a clear recognition of the need for long-term notification of any changes will be vital.
Baroness Altmann
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I would like to request and invite all noble Lords to be in touch with the review, so that we can ensure lessons are learned. If noble Lords have any observations on issues relevant to the consideration of long-term changes to the state pension age and state pension age policy, this is the opportunity to do that. It will be an independent review which will consider all the relevant factors, and the reviewer will welcome such evidence. The review is about the state pension age. It is also about the longer term. I repeat that it will not consider any changes to the state pension age timetable that is already legislated for up to 2028.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Minister will forgive me, could we just clarify that point? The terms of reference—I have a copy here—say that the review will consider:
“What a suitable State Pension age is, in the immediate future and over the longer term”.
Baroness Altmann
The Government have made it clear that this is about the changes for the longer term and the appropriate framework for state pension age policy. No changes will be considered and the reviewer will not be looking at making or recommending any changes to the timetable before 2028.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as Pensions Minister, Steve Webb set up a system for gradual rises in the state pension age that was widely hailed as both fair and affordable, so why are the Government seeking so soon to unpick this consensus? Are they contemplating changes that will fall harshly on low-income earners, especially women, who depend on the state pension and have no private pot to enable them to retire earlier?
Baroness Altmann
I assure the noble Baroness that this is not about unpicking anything. This was legislated for in the Pensions Act 2014. We are merely following the legislation that was introduced.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement from the Minister and the setting up of an independent inquiry. I can only offer my sympathy to the chairman because, as she knows, pension age is a hot potato politically. There was a debate in the Commons last week about the whole case of the baby-boomer, or WASPI, women, and a Motion, which was lost by only a few votes, calling for action from the Government on transitional provision for these women. Will the Minister, who in a previous incarnation showed great sympathy for these baby-boomer women, express some concern that this is not within the remit of the newly appointed review?
Baroness Altmann
I stress to the noble Baroness and noble Lords that if there are any issues they would like to raise with the independent reviewer—lessons to be learned from the past or issues that should be considered for the future—they should do so. It is an independent review, looking at all the relevant factors.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House today that the Government would accept any ruling or recommendation from the independent reviewer that that category of women—I have to declare an interest as I fall within that so-called group of women, and I served as shadow Minister for women’s pensions for a year—were not given 10 years, which is deemed to be the appropriate time to prepare for a later retirement age?
Baroness Altmann
The independent review will be considering long-term changes to the state pension age. It will not be recommending any changes before what is currently legislated for up to 2028.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, will the review take into account the ability of people to work beyond the age of 65, bearing in mind that some people have a very physical job and may not be able to work after that?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, as the terms of reference make clear, the independent review will consider changes in life expectancy as well all other relevant factors.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, will Mr John Cridland, as the independent reviewer, be provided by the Government with official terms of reference? We have seen a press release, but will there be formal terms of reference shaping the work that he does? Will it be possible for him to consider some of the schemes previously used by Scandinavian countries that simply index the increase in the basic state pension age to increasing longevity as it goes forward, both up and down?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, this will be an independent review. All these issues are a matter for the reviewer. I urge as many noble Lords as possible to make representations to the review. It will consult widely across society and across interest groups to ensure that all these relevant factors are considered.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a deep unfairness in having a single retirement age irrespective of background? In my home city, two wards one mile apart have a difference in life expectancy of 11 years. Those who are better off receive more state pension for longer and enjoy disability-free years. Will the Minister accept that every time she raises the state pension age, disadvantaged people have to wait longer for a pension while, at the same time, they are more likely to incur disabilities earlier, so that they enter retirement already unfit, unwell and unable to enjoy it?
Baroness Altmann
The noble Baroness raises relevant points. I stress again that the review is not just about raising the state pension age but about considering the appropriate way to run state pension age policy. I encourage her to raise those issues with the reviewer.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Did the Minister approve the wording of the press release that has been referred to, with the word “immediacy” in it?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, the press release has been compiled by the department and the wording of the release has, of course, been approved.
European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 February be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, before us today are two Motions, each of which goes to the heart of the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union. The first is a statutory instrument that, in light of the UK’s renegotiated relationship with the European Union, would set the date for the referendum. The second refers to a document published and laid before this House on Monday 22 February last week that sets out the terms of this new relationship.
I shall take each Motion in turn, but perhaps I may be forgiven if I start by saying how much I am looking forward to hearing today the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Gilbert of Panteg.
The statutory instrument is required to set the date of the referendum. Given the deal achieved by the Prime Minister, it is time to give the British people their say. The Prime Minister has announced his intention to do so on 23 June, but it is for Parliament, in this House and the other place, to approve that date. The statutory instrument gives this House the opportunity to give its approval today.
The instrument does several other things, which I shall come to. First, let me set out why the Government believe that 23 June is the right day for the poll. The date strikes the right balance between having a proper debate and a timely vote. Any sooner and we risk unduly curtailing the campaign. Any later and we risk testing the patience of the British people. We have to take account of what is real in human life outside the world of politics. Shortly after 23 June, schools start to break up for the holidays. Whereas I know noble Lords will continue to work after that—I do not know, I assume so; we normally do—it would certainly be seen as awkward if we held the referendum while people were on holiday over the summer. That has not been a popular proposal in the past. Delaying beyond late June would mean delaying a referendum until September or October. The British people would quite rightly expect to have their say sooner than that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I had the opportunity yesterday of asking the Minister informally about the problem that might arise if the Queen’s Speech was to take place during the course of the referendum campaign and she kindly dealt with that. There was a report this morning that the Queen’s Speech is now going to be held in July. Can the Minister confirm if that is the case?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who was helpful yesterday in one of the all-Peers briefing meetings that I have held to raise these matters. May I put on the record the answer I gave yesterday and respond immediately to his question? I have seen reports in the press, including in the Times. They have not been substantiated to me. Having been Chief Whip over a period of years, I am certainly aware of the fact that it would be highly unusual for any announcement of the Queen’s Speech date to be made as early as this. There is clearly no decision on that matter. However, the noble Lord raises an important fact about the Queen’s Speech and its interaction with the referendum. There is, I am assured, no inhibition on having the Queen’s Speech during the period of a referendum. That, I hope, underlines the initial answer that I gave yesterday. I am sure there is no let or inhibition on that going ahead.
It is important that people have enough time properly to inform themselves of all the options and to understand the consequences of their vote. Campaigners on both sides of the argument must have enough time to set out their case and have a full and robust debate. We believe that 23 June gives that balance. It also meets the practical requirements of the Electoral Commission. Its assessment of readiness, which was published last week, notes that the date,
“does not pose a significant risk to a well-run referendum”.
As well as setting the date, the statutory instrument also establishes the timing for three key stages of the referendum: the designation process, the regulated referendum period itself and the pre-poll reporting requirements. The House examined all those matters very closely indeed when the referendum Act made its passage through the House. The Electoral Commission’s assessment of readiness endorses the Government’s approach on each of these areas and notes that the arrangements for a well-run referendum are well advanced. This has been echoed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Both have given the instrument their usual rigorous scrutiny and both were content with the approach proposed. I am grateful to the members of those committees.
The designation process is the means by which the Electoral Commission appoints lead campaigners on one or both sides. We have followed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act in allowing a total of six weeks. The application window for campaigners will be open for four weeks from 4 March, were the House to agree later today that the statutory instrument be approved. The Commission then has two weeks, from 1 to 14 April, to decide which, if any, applicants to designate. Many noble Lords here today took an active part in the passage of the Act and will remember that designated lead campaigners receive a number of benefits, including: a higher spending limit, of £7 million; a free delivery of mailings to every household or every elector; and, assuming campaigners are designated on both sides, access to a grant of up to £600,000 and a campaign broadcast. The regulated referendum period follows the designation process, with no overlap of dates. It will run for 10 weeks from 15 April. During this period, full financial and campaigning controls will apply—in particular, spending limits for campaigners. I stress this point because this timetable specifically meets the requests made by Members of this House during the passage of the referendum Act. At that stage, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, who will speak today on this very point.
Finally, the statutory instrument sets deadlines for registered campaigners to report any donations or loans to the Electoral Commission. It is the first time in a UK-wide referendum that sources of significant campaign finance will be visible and public before the poll, ensuring real transparency. This process was refined during the passage through this House of the European Union Referendum Act. I must thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for leading that debate with his customary eloquence.
At the end of this opening speech, I shall move that the statutory instrument should be agreed to. However, the formal view of the House on that matter will be taken at the very end of proceedings tonight.
I turn now to the EU renegotiation. The British public made it clear that they were not content with the UK’s relationship with Europe. The Prime Minister sought to address that. In November last year, he wrote to Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, setting out in detail the four areas in which he was seeking reform. These were economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and welfare, which has been allied with migration in the press. At the February European Council the Prime Minister negotiated a deal covering each of these areas. This deal gives the UK a special status within the EU that no arrangement outside the EU could match. It is a good deal for Britain—as the Prime Minister has said, it is a deal that gives us the best of both worlds.
This agreement is legally binding. It is also irreversible, because it can be amended or revoked only if every single member state of the EU, including the UK, were to agree unanimously to do so. It commits member states to future treaty change. Last week, it was registered with the United Nations as an international treaty.
Taking each of the four issues that the Prime Minister addressed in turn, let me set out briefly what the deal gives us. I appreciate that noble Lords will have had the opportunity to look at the White Paper last week and to have considered other documents published since. On economic governance, the renegotiation secures the UK’s position inside the single market but outside the single currency. It means that we have new commitments from the EU to complete the single market and sign new trade deals. The responsibility for supervising the financial stability of the UK remains in the hands of the Bank of England and other UK authorities. We have made sure that we will never join the euro; British taxpayers will never be required to bail out the eurozone; British businesses cannot be discriminated against for not being in the eurozone. And all discussions on matters that affect all EU member states will involve all EU member states, including the United Kingdom, not just members of the eurozone.
On competitiveness, the renegotiation delivers a new commitment from the European Commission to review annually the burden of regulation on business. If there is too much red tape, we will demand that it is cut. There is a specific focus on relieving the burden on small businesses, and for key sectors. The agreement also makes it clear that the EU will pursue,
“an active and ambitious trade policy”,
and that it must boost its international competitiveness in key areas such as energy and the digital single market.
On sovereignty, we are out of ever-closer union. We will never be part of a European superstate. The text of the renegotiation includes a commitment to change the treaties to exclude the UK from ever-closer union,
“at the time of their next revision”.
We will not be compelled to aim for “a common destination”.
We have obtained new powers to block unwanted European laws: a legally binding agreement that our Parliament can, acting with some others in Europe— 55% of national Parliaments—block unwanted new EU laws with a “red card”. A new mechanism will be created to review existing EU laws to ensure compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, so that powers can be brought back to member states wherever possible. National Parliaments will be involved in this mechanism, and the European Commission will also be required to report every year to the Council on its compliance with these principles.
On welfare and migration, an emergency brake will mean that people coming to the UK from within the EU will have to wait four years until they have full access to our in-work benefits. This brake will take effect once the necessary legislation is passed. The European Commission has made it clear that Britain already qualifies to deploy that brake. Migrants from the EU working in this country will not be able to receive child benefit at UK rates if their children live in another EU country.
Let us be clear that much has been said elsewhere about the legal status of the deal. Let me elucidate. This deal is legally binding for EU member states. They all signed up to it in a decision under international law. The February European Council conclusions and the texts of the deal agreed at the Council set this out clearly. They are supported by the legal opinions of both the Council Legal Service and Sir Alan Dashwood QC. The deal is also irreversible because, as mentioned earlier, it can be amended or revoked only if every single member state, including the UK, were to agree unanimously.
The European Court of Justice has held that decisions of this sort must be taken into consideration as being an instrument for the interpretation of the EU treaties. The Council president has confirmed this. He said:
“The 28 Heads of State or Government unanimously agreed and adopted a legally binding and irreversible settlement for the United Kingdom in the EU. The decision concerning a new settlement is in conformity with the Treaties and cannot be annulled by the European Court of Justice”.
This new settlement builds on a number of existing protections and opt-outs which apply to the UK’s membership of the EU. This means that the UK now has a special status within the EU: inside those areas of activity where it is in the UK’s interest, but outside those where it is not. I have already mentioned that we are not under the standard obligation for member states to join the euro. We will always keep the pound. The UK has remained outside the Schengen border-free area, which means that we maintain control over our own borders. The UK has opted out of many measures in the justice and home affairs fields while opting in to those which are essential to protect the security of this country.
Noble Lords will be aware that today we laid before Parliament the latest document intended to inform the public ahead of the referendum. This is the most recent in a series of papers fulfilling those commitments that I made to this House during the passage of the European Union Referendum Bill before it became the Act. There were calls from across the House to ensure that the voters went into this debate with all the information they needed. The Government listened carefully and brought forward amendments to the Bill in response to all the positions put forward by Peers from every Bench around the House.
The first paper is named specifically in the Motion on the Order Paper today—The Best of Both Worlds: The United Kingdom’s Special Status in a Reformed European Union. This fulfils the obligation under Section 6 of the European Union Referendum Act which required the Secretary of State to set out the results of the renegotiations and the Government’s view of them. The second paper details the process of withdrawing from the European Union. Though not specifically mandated in legislation, this paper, published on Monday, about Article 50 meets a commitment I made to the House on Report on 23 November at column 475 of Hansard.
Today, a third paper was published. It sets out the alternatives to membership of the European Union, and sets out unequivocally the Government’s view that none of the alternative models of association with the EU offers anything like such a good balance of advantages, obligations and influence as we get from our current special status within the EU. This paper is the first part of the report that the Government will publish to meet the requirement of Section 7(1) of the European Union Referendum Act 2015. The second part of that report, which will provide information about the rights and obligations that arise as a result of the UK’s membership of the EU, will be laid at a later date—I hope not too much later. Work is ahead. Both parts of the report will be available eventually on the GOV.UK website. Today’s part is on the website and a copy is in the Printed Paper Office. As soon as the second part of the report is available it will immediately go on the website and, again, I commit that it will go into the Printed Paper Office.
The Prime Minister set out last week the Government’s clear recommendation that the United Kingdom should remain a member—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. We all appreciated the careful way in which she shepherded the Referendum Bill through this House. Indeed, there was a request for information, but does she not recognise that there is a difference between information and propaganda?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, of course, the Government are leaving propaganda to those who will be the lead designators of the campaigns. They are fulfilling their full requirements under the Act, as they should do.
This will be a once-in-a-generation moment to shape the future of our country. Ultimately, it will be for the British public to decide, and that includes Members of this House, as a result of the drafting of the Act itself. However, the Government have made clear their view. This Government came in with a clear mandate to renegotiate Britain’s place in Europe and to put those changes to the people. The Prime Minister has successfully completed the former. The instrument in front of the House today will set the date for the latter.
This is the last piece of legislation that will be debated in this Chamber to establish the referendum itself. As such, it represents Parliament taking the final steps towards a truly historic moment—giving the people of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar their say on membership of the European Union. The case for holding the poll on 23 June is a simple one. It gives time for proper debate without delaying and trying the electorate’s patience. There is little point in waiting further. We have a deal. The UK’s relationship with the EU has been changed and improved by that. It is time for the campaigners to make their case and for the British people then to decide, settling the issue for a generation.
At this stage, I refer back to a comment I made earlier—I will now formally move, with regard to the statutory instrument before the House, that the decision will be made later. I make that formal recommendation, which launches us on an historic journey towards a referendum in which every single Member of this House will be able to make their own, individual decision. I beg to move that the House do approve the European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, the starting gun has been fired and the Minister has correctly pointed out that this is the beginning of an historic journey for our country. This is about our country’s place in the EU and in the wider world. It is comforting to hear, after so many years of sniping and criticism, a full-blooded defence of the European Union from many, if not all, quarters of government. While we will pretend to enjoy the sight of Cabinet Members falling out with each other over this issue, it is worth underlining that the decision on whether we remain or leave the EU is too great a decision for us to fall into party-political squabbles. Whatever the initial motivation within the Tory party for wanting the EU referendum, we now need to do all we can to secure a remain vote, to put country above party and to do what is in the best interests of this nation.
The SI before us today, as the Minister has stated, sets out the date of the referendum, the start of the referendum period and the date on which designated organisations can apply for recognition. We have debated many of these issues before and we have no objection to the SI. The more interesting documents before us today are the White Paper, which sets out the agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated in Brussels in mid-February, and the devastatingly factual document produced by the Government on the process for withdrawing from the EU. If you were not sure about which way to vote in this EU referendum before, I would suggest you read the document on the process for withdrawal, which makes extremely sobering reading on what will happen in the interim period prior to any future relationship with the EU being concluded—a period that could last for a decade and put us in an extremely difficult situation as a nation. In addition, it is worth reading the document on alternatives to membership that has come hot off the press today.
The fact is that many of us would have supported the effort to remain a part of the EU, irrespective of the outcome of the Brussels negotiations. We believe that our relationship with our nearest neighbours must be much more than the four areas set out in that renegotiation. We think that our relationship is fundamental, yes, for access to our largest export market; critical, yes, for us to ensure safety for our citizens; and critical, yes, for protecting workers, consumers and the environment—but more than that, it sets out how we want this country to meet with the wider world. Never before have our country and our world been so interconnected; never before have we seen international terrorist threats that confront us all; never before have we seen worldwide emigration on the scale we see today; and never before have we been quite so aware that what happens economically on the other side of the continent will impact on our own standard of living in the UK. Now is not the time to be turning our backs on our nearest neighbours. Now, while the US is signing partnership deals with Pacific nations, is not the time to be retreating into splendid isolation, with no assurance of what our market access will look like. And now, when Russia is menacing in central Europe and the Middle East is in upheaval, is not the time to be reneging on EU solidarity and threatening our own national security. Now is the time to show leadership in Europe and demonstrate that we are committed to displaying an outward-looking vision for our country, safe in the knowledge that we have strength in numbers.
There are others who would have rubbished any deal the Prime Minister had returned with. Had he promised a decade’s supply of the finest Belgian beer, or guaranteed a place in the European Championship for every UK nation, or guaranteed lovely sunny days for the next three years, they would still have said no. They believe that we need to regain sovereignty. Where was our sovereignty, though, last week, when the pound plummeted and the markets decided that all this insecurity was bad for our economy? Where was our sovereignty when we needed to ask Italy to send back one of the London bombers? And where will our sovereignty be when we have to go back to our continental colleagues in the event of a no vote and beg for access to their market of 500 million consumers and an economy of almost £11 trillion?
I have heard the argument that the EU has a trade surplus with the UK, so they will want to trade with us; but that does not take account of the fact that EU exports to the UK account for 3% of EU GDP, while our exports to the EU account for 14% of our GDP. Only in Cyprus and Ireland does the UK represent more than 10% of total exports. Half of the EU’s trade surplus with the UK is accounted for by just two member states, Germany and the Netherlands—yet every single EU member state would have a veto on what that agreement would look like. Can we honestly be confident they would all be willing to sign on the dotted line in a generous trade deal? The leave campaign seems to have a schizophrenic attitude towards EU member states. On the one hand, they say that the EU is constantly ganging up on the UK and that we have no influence; and on the other they say that were we to leave, EU member states would roll over, allow us to tickle their tummies and agree to any new trade agreement we demand. Which one is it?
In an interconnected world, sovereignty is a fantasy concept. What the outers are offering is a dream ticket, promising a better life; but they have no idea of nor common belief in what that dream looks like or where it may lead. Nor can they offer any practical pathway or route to get to their promised land.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that although we have 3 million jobs making and selling things to clients in the European Union, they have 4.5 million jobs selling things to us? Does she agree that they need our free trade much more than we need theirs and that it will therefore continue?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
The noble Lord clearly was not listening to me. I just explained that not every single other member state, some of which do not have a trade surplus with us, may want to sign on the dotted line for a future trade agreement. The fact is that 14% of our GDP depends on our relationship with the EU compared with 3% of its GDP. They would have the upper hand in a future negotiating strategy.
In the light of the fact that nobody knows which way the public will vote, I wonder whether the Minister in summing up would let us know whether the Government have made any contingency plans for what would happen, in the case of UK withdrawal from the EU, if there was to be a run on the pound. However, there are many people in this country who have yet to decide. It is those people we will all be trying to convince of the merits of our arguments in the next few months, and it is those people whom I believe the Prime Minister was trying to reach out to in his attempts at renegotiation. They may be relieved by the fact that we are no longer on an inexorable route to closer integration. They will be consoled by the guarantee that we will have a full say on the rules of the single market while remaining outside of the eurozone, and comforted by the knowledge that EU citizens will have to pay in to our welfare system before taking out of it. They can also be safe in the knowledge that the negotiations are legally binding and will take effect immediately after the British people vote to remain in the EU. The information that will set out citizens’ rights and duties if we cease our membership of the EU, which noble Lords requested to be produced prior to the referendum, will be invaluable to that group of people. We look forward to that information being published.
The EU is far from perfect. While we sit here in our gilded, centuries-old institution—
Lord Robathan (Con)
I should reassure the noble Baroness that I have been listening very carefully. Could she explain what role the World Trade Organization would have should there be any form of embargo or restrictions on British trade with the EU were we to leave?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
It is not about restrictions on trade. The fact is that we would have to renegotiate a completely new deal, about which we have no idea. We would still want access to EU markets. Some 50% of our trade is with the EU. If we went along with WTO agreements we would have to start paying tariffs on our exports. It may be that the noble Lord thinks that that would be a good idea for producers in this country; I believe that it would be fatal for many of our small businesses in particular.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
What does the noble Baroness think workers at the Airbus factory in Toulouse would say if their Government put a tariff on the engines made by Rolls-Royce, on the wings made by British Aerospace, and on the landing gear manufactured by Dowty here? Would they refuse to accept those and still expect buyers from overseas to buy an aeroplane with no engines, no wings and no landing gear?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord asked me about Airbus, which is a major manufacturing industry based in north Wales. About 6,000 jobs depend on that relationship. I can tell noble Lords that I have been speaking to the leaders of Airbus in north Wales. They have assured me that they are very much in favour of retaining their membership of the EU. They know that, yes, there may be a short period when they could not retrain and move that facility abroad, but I can tell noble Lords that, in the long term, the French and the Germans would be very happy to receive their ability to build wings on the continent, rather than having them built in our country. This is a critical issue and not a laughing matter, in particular for those 6,000 workers at Airbus in north Wales.
As I said, the EU is far from perfect. Yet we sit here in our gilt-clad, centuries-old institution, replete with our opaque methods of determining membership and quirky yet endearing traditions of expression. Who are we to throw stones at an institution that has had less than 60 years to establish itself? Yes, the EU needs reform: not just this one-off but constant reform to adapt to the needs and requirements of our age, as indeed do our own institutions in the UK.
As a nation we have a moral and practical interest in preventing conflict, stopping terrorism, supporting the poorest in the world and stopping climate change. We need our global institutions to function well to cope with these challenges. We either do this together through bodies such as the EU and UN or we will find to our cost that our ability to influence these challenges independently is restricted. How many would hear Britain’s voice whispering in the world?
The EU also needs the UK. It needs us to be at the top of the table to help reduce the burden on business and ensure that we fight protectionism and trade dumping. But we need the EU. The EU has given us clear water, cleaner air, safer food, anti-discrimination laws, maternity and paternity leave, billions invested in our poorest communities and £3 billion a year for our struggling farmers. Some 3.5 million British jobs depend on that relationship with our nearest neighbour. We have seen caps on bankers’ bonuses, the capping of credit and debit card fees, health and safety laws that have saved countless lives, paid holidays and protection for part-time workers.
But we cannot and should not duck the immigration argument. It is true that immigration brings pressures to some of our communities, but let us not forget that EU citizens make a net fiscal contribution to this country. They staff our hospitals, process our food and are central to the hospitality industry. Let us remind people that 2 million of our own UK citizens have taken advantage of the EU to make their homes on the continent.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Indeed, some of them are in our Chamber. A weakened EU, which is likely to happen if we leave, will not be in the interests of this country. Let us not forget that, whatever else the EU has or has not achieved, there has been a peace dividend for more than 60 years in what was up until 1945 the bloodiest continent in the world. We should not take peace for granted.
Whether we remain or leave the EU is probably the most important political decision that my generation will ever make. The new agreement has now been set out. Our party will be at the forefront of the campaign to ensure that we retain our membership and remain a strong and powerful voice in our challenging and changing world.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the fact that the Prime Minister completed his renegotiation with a settlement on the UK’s membership of the European Union that enables him to campaign passionately, heart and soul, to keep the UK in the EU. We welcome that this is the position of Her Majesty’s Government, even if not of all thier Ministers—or of the former Ministers sitting in serried ranks directly opposite me.
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for accepting amendments during the passage of the European Union Referendum Act to bring forward reports on the renegotiation such as the one under consideration today, The Best of Both Worlds. I believe this was the result of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. I am very sorry that he appears to feel that it is propaganda and not the factual document he was looking for. Nevertheless, we are grateful that this document has come forward and, indeed, that the other reports that have come out, and are promised, on the consequences of withdrawal, the process of withdrawal under Article 50, and alternatives to membership in the possible event that the UK leaves the European Union.
The present report and the European Council conclusions of 19 February make clear that the United Kingdom already has a unique position within the European Union. We have a permanent opt-out from the euro and have remained outside the Schengen acquis. We are not part of the Schengen border controls and have flexibility on aspects of freedom, security and justice and of police and judicial co-operation. We are not signed up to every aspect of the European Union, even in the current circumstances.
However, the renegotiation goes further, creating a special relationship for the United Kingdom within the European Union which ensures that the UK will not be bound by the concept of ever-closer union—not something that I believe Liberal Democrats were too hung up on but an issue that seems to have affected many people concerned that European integration would go too far. That is now stopped. The renegotiation provides guarantees for the City of London thanks to a commitment to non-discrimination for non-eurozone members of the European Union and an emergency brake. Those who wish to leave the European Union would do well to consider whether it is realistic to imagine that the 27 would give us such a privileged position if we were on the outside—certainly, if we had simply decided that we no longer wanted to be part of the club and withdrew. The evidence suggests that they would not.
Of course, Her Majesty’s Government would seek to negotiate a new arrangement in the event of a vote to leave on 23 June, possibly running parallel with the Article 50 mechanism—I will not say “negotiation” because we do not get to negotiate, should the UK leave. However, it is hard to know what future negotiations might achieve. Seeking to exit is an unknown direction; nobody has tried it to date, and it is hard to see how any changes would benefit the United Kingdom. I do not wish to engage in Project Fear but it is unclear, for example, what would happen to EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom, or UK nationals such as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who we understand lives in France, should we vote to leave the European Union. I do not imagine that there would be an immediate move to repatriate UK nationals resident abroad, but perhaps we do not want to take that risk.
More seriously, a huge number of unknowns surround the sort of access that British citizens would have to employment and residency in the event of a vote to leave. It might be possible to negotiate rights for those already resident and/or working elsewhere in the European Union, or who have retired elsewhere in the European Union, but such access, if it is to be similar to the rights we enjoy today, would undoubtedly come with reciprocal rights. We would not simply be able to say that British nationals resident in other EU member states could remain but that, if we decided that we did not want EU nationals to be resident in the UK, we could somehow send them home, so we need to think about reciprocity.
Those who wish to leave are almost certainly correct that our erstwhile EU partners would not want to sever all ties. I do not believe for a moment that a vote to leave would simply mean that we were on the outside, completely separated. That is in the realms of fantasy on the negative side. However, it would be extraordinarily arrogant to assume that the UK is so important to the European Union that we would be accorded all the rights of full members once we decided to leave, but without any of the responsibilities. To suggest otherwise would be in the realms of deluded fantasy. After all, those states which have full access to the internal market via the European Economic Area are required to contribute to the EU budget, abide by the rules and yet do not have a seat at the table—“Pay, obey, no say”, as it was put in Brussels recently. So any attempt to keep the benefits of membership of the internal market would undoubtedly come at a price.
We would have less say than we have now but we would still be expected to contribute financially and we would still be bound by the four freedoms, including the freedoms we seem to like—the free movement of goods, capital and services—as well as the freedom we are a little ambivalent about: the free movement of people. The Prime Minister’s renegotiation has secured some limits on free movement, which will be triggered in the event of a vote to remain. A vote to leave would ensure that the European Union remained unreformed and it would surely be unwilling to make new, alternative special arrangements for the United Kingdom after any vote to walk away. By staying in the European Union we can exert influence; by leaving, we lose influence.
Of course, some Members of your Lordships’ House suggest that the European Union is not democratic—a point alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely—and that somehow the European Parliament is lacking. I always find this a somewhat strange argument to make in your Lordships’ House, where most Members, with the exception of 90 hereditary Peers, are not here on a democratic mandate. But the European Union does have democratic processes and the United Kingdom, as a member, has a seat at the table. Indeed, we have many seats at the table—in the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Council—not to mention a European Commissioner, currently drawn, as was his predecessor, from your Lordships’ House. We play a full part in decision-making as a member of the Union.
There is no conceivable alternative arrangement to membership that would give us such influence—the Norwegians will tell you that. Yes, by leaving we could formally regain sovereignty but at the expense of power and influence—an “illusion of sovereignty”, as the Prime Minister has put it. Likewise, the idea of regaining control of our borders is nothing but a siren call. The UK is not currently part of the Schengen border regime; we still monitor our own borders. A vote to leave would not alter that. What it would do is make us less secure as we would be walking away from effective cross-border co-operation on policing, the European arrest warrant and the Schengen information system—areas of co-operation which show how the United Kingdom does indeed have the best of both worlds: access to EU structures where we want them, exemptions where we do not.
In conclusion, it is the view of the Liberal Democrat Benches that the UK is better off and more secure remaining in the European Union. It is good for the United Kingdom and good for peace and security in the European Union. We look forward to campaigning with the Prime Minister for a vote to remain.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the issue of influence in the EU—and I know the noble Baroness is very expert on European matters—could she confirm that in the past 20 years the UK has sought an amendment in the Council of Ministers on 72 occasions and been defeated on 72 occasions?
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, there are all sorts of statistics one can use. My understanding is, yes, where there have been formal votes the UK has been defeated. There are also many cases where there is a process of negotiation and votes are not held, where the UK is able to have influence. Working with our partners, we are able to stop legislation that we do not want. On the outside, a country such as Norway simply accepts anything that is put—or walks away from that part of the internal market. We have the opportunity to influence on the inside. On the outside, we lose even that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, answering the first question on the Order Paper—the fixing of 23 June for the referendum—will not, I suspect, trouble the House for long. This really has to be the Government’s call and now that the period of negotiation is over, the case for moving to a vote without unnecessarily extending the period of uncertainty, instability and volatility that we already see around us is surely a convincing one.
When the Prime Minister’s Statement was repeated in this House last week, I said that I thought the reforms he had achieved were “substantive and valuable”. Having now read the Government’s detailed account of the negotiations in their paper, The Best of Both Worlds, I am confirmed in that view. I have no intention of going into a detailed exegesis of that paper, which I found clear and compelling, but I am puzzled that some members of the Government, the Lord Chancellor in particular, are challenging some of the content of that paper, which was issued in their name. I am puzzled, too, that the critics take so little account of the European Union’s track record in honouring such post-dated commitments to treaty change. In both the Danish and Irish cases, the post-dated commitments were honoured in both letter and spirit when the treaties were next amended. Nor were they ever challenged in the interim by the European Court of Justice. Since mottos seem to be in vogue, I recall that “pacta sunt servanda”, which can perhaps be rendered into the demotic as “sticking to your deals”, is an absolute rule in Brussels.
It is sometimes suggested that, if the electorate vote in June to leave the EU, we can then return to Brussels and renegotiate the renegotiation, getting better terms for remaining in the EU. Up to last weekend, this seemed to be the view of that Pied Piper of Hamelin of our days, the Mayor of London, but he now seems to have changed his mind—something he does quite often—admitting that the choice in June is indeed binary: in or out. That is wise, because that is what it is. The Government clearly regard a vote to leave as requiring us to trigger the provisions of Article 50 to establish the terms of our withdrawal. There is not a scintilla of evidence that any of the 27 other member states or the Commission or the Parliament would be prepared to enter into negotiation on any other basis. Indeed, the February agreement specifically says that these reforms will be taken off the table if we vote to leave.
We are told by leading Eurosceptics that the EU is rushing headlong towards political union and that, despite all that has been said in this agreement about ever-closer union, we will be dragged along behind them. Again, there is no real evidence for that assertion. Quoting Jacques Delors, who has not held any office, European or otherwise, for more than 20 years, is not evidence. The negative reactions to the Brussels deal of those outside government who hold those views in other member states indicate their belief that the EU will not now be heading into political union. Brandishing such fantasies should surely not be part of the serious national debate in which we now need to engage.
The issue of sovereignty, already mentioned this afternoon, and whether pooling it or hoarding it is in the country’s best interests, certainly will be part of that debate. But it is a complex subject not always well addressed. It is not enough just to mention the word “sovereignty” and expect the traffic to stop. Since the Second World War, successive Governments and Parliaments have chosen to exercise our sovereignty collectively with others on matters every bit as weighty as the European Union. Article 5 of the Brussels treaty, which set up NATO and which commits us to respond militarily, conceivably even in a nuclear exchange, to any act of aggression against one of its members, is one such commitment. So are our memberships of the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. We accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. None of this pooling of sovereignty is being contested in the current debate, so when the pooling of sovereignty is contested in the EU context, it is surely reasonable to take account of those other instances and to recognise that what we are really discussing is the case for a rules-based international community in contrast to shifting back into a new world disorder.
The one thing that makes no sense is any suggestion that the decision in June is not that important, that the outcome does not really matter very much, and that everything will be much the same the day after as the day before. We are in all probability talking about the survival—or failure to survive—of two unions, not one, and about an irreversible shift in Britain’s role in the world, which it will be too late to regret should the electorate decide to leave the EU.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the statutory instrument, which should clear the way nicely to the referendum. I dislike the way in which the whole debate has become somewhat personalised, obviously with the eager help of the media. I assure your Lordships that I have good friends on both sides in this argument and I intend to keep it that way. I hope that we can stick, as the late Tony Benn always used to say, to the issues.
I can put my own view quite simply. First, I believe that Britain joined the EU, when it was the European Community, at the wrong time and is trying to leave at the wrong time—or is at least talking about it. We are discussing getting out just when the whole EU is evolving in entirely new directions, driven by major new world forces—a change which seems to have escaped the notice of many of the leavers, and indeed some on the remain side as well. Secondly, I greatly admire the tenacity and energy shown by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister over the deal which we are debating. However, I do not think that it will be an entirely central influence on the way that people vote in the actual referendum, although it has certainly opened up all sorts of reform ambitions in other member states all over Europe, as anyone can see by reading the continental newspapers.
I believe that the way in which people will be influenced to vote is by one overriding and much deeper issue. That is whether they think that the EU is heading inevitably for an integrated, superstate political union—centralised, with an all-powerful euro currency and dragging us into the mangle against our interests—in which case we should certainly leave and stand clear, or whether Europe is in reality evolving by necessity into a new model under outside and global impacts both good and bad, as we can see in the daily papers, which will compel us and the EU to become far more flexible and much less centralised. In that case we would be very unwise indeed not to stay and help steer the new model into being.
My own judgment goes to the latter case and to staying on board, for three main reasons. First, the peoples of Europe clearly do not want more integration and uniformity than they already have, whatever their leaders may say. The White Paper which we are debating, The Best of Both Worlds, asserts:
“Some … countries have chosen the path of deeper … integration”,
but I wonder whether that is in fact right. Which are these other countries, except perhaps Luxembourg? Some countries may not want to go back beyond the existing co-operation but I see no popular support whatever throughout Europe for a lot more pushing together in the digital age, with more integration, centralisation and intrusion—on the contrary.
Secondly, over the last decade or so new trade patterns, supply chains and modes of production have been utterly transforming the old EU model. Even the single market is not what it seemed in the last century, certainly not for services where a single market in Europe barely exists, despite services being 80% of our GDP and at least 46% of our export earnings, as the Government’s papers remind us. As for the eurozone, while that is depicted as a dominant and fearsome force ganging up against us from which we must be sheltered, it is in fact deeply and chronically sick. I see nothing but crisis and division ahead within the eurozone. I do not know whether the former Governor of the Bank of England, the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, is here but I am glad that he now agrees with me on that.
Thirdly, huge new markets outside the EU are opening up which are not alternatives to the EU region but ones in which we must succeed. Asia, Africa and Latin America are where the big prizes are. The Commonwealth network ought to give us unique advantages in these markets, providing that we use it properly.
In short, we have to ride both horses. The immediate priority here in Europe is, and has been all along, reform—deep reform throughout the EU to meet the digital age and totally new world conditions, not least the total transformation of world energy that is now going on. As The Best of Both Worlds White Paper says repeatedly, that work is not over. Indeed, it is just beginning and in that work, all our history tells us that we can and must play a central part.
Lord Mandelson (Lab)
My Lords, I support what the Prime Minister negotiated in Brussels, and I hope that others on both sides of this House will do so. However we got to this point, we have to realise that it is a national fight that we have on our hands now, not a party one, and for the country’s sake we have all of us got to make sure that the right side wins. We simply cannot allow British business and their employees to take such a hit for the sake of the political aims and whims of those who simply cannot understand the difference between taking back control of our country and the modern means of exercising influence in the 21st century—those who simply cannot understand how, yes, you can diminish your sovereignty when you enter a transnational treaty or institution, but then you get back in return a real increase in your power to affect public policy, big events and important challenges, which all of us face in our neighbourhood.
Noble Lords should be under no illusion that the coming referendum presents us with a profound moment in the life of our country—and once the die is cast, there will be no turning back. We cannot leave the European Union and for economic and trade purposes be treated as if we are still in it; that is the unescapable fact that we are facing. Let us be clear about what that means. Unless we want to become a bigger version of Norway, accepting all the laws and rules of the single market without having any say over them whatever—and, by the way, paying quite a healthy sum into the EU budget for the privilege of doing so—or if we want to become some variation of Switzerland, which by the way has no passporting rights for its financial services into the European Union, leaving would mean no more unhindered or unfettered access to Europe’s single market by Britain, our businesses or exporters. It would mean continuing to accept European norms and standards as a condition for the market access that we are granted, and it would mean that once the divorce is promulgated, after the two-year Article 50 process, we would face a return to paying EU tariffs while whatever deal was finally negotiated and struck between us. That means that we would pay EU tariffs on our exports and imports, which means higher prices in our shops.
Lord Mandelson
If the noble Lord does not mind, I shall continue. It would mean losing the EU’s preferential trading benefits in foreign markets until such time—and it would be a long time—before we were able to renegotiate them back. It would also potentially mean having to raise our own tariffs on imports for those markets, as they would no longer be covered by WTO-compliant agreements.
Lord Mandelson
Is this my time or the noble Lord’s time that he is eating in to?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, somewhat reluctantly. He has talked about access to the internal market and the additional costs, as he sees it. If this is so catastrophic, will he explain how it is that in the invisible trade in goods since 2011, the United States, without being part of the single market, has managed to sell considerably more than we have to that market? Even in terms of services, the United States sells more than $200 billion worth a year.
Lord Mandelson
I am sorry—I am not just talking about invisible services. I am talking about British exports and British jobs and what we would pay in addition to get our goods, and all we contribute to supply chains and value chains, into the single market.
I am not going to dwell further on the trade implications of leaving, except to say that anyone who thinks that, freed from the so-called protectionist shackles of Brussels, we could somehow beetle around the world bagging major new free trade agreements like low-hanging fruit needs a reality check. This is not the 1970s, which is when Britain last attempted to negotiate an international free trade agreement. We have no people. We have no negotiating capacity left in Whitehall. We would have to rebuild it from scratch before we began that process. More to the point, there are not the countries queuing up to negotiate with countries like us. We are a mid-sized, mature, already open, advanced, western economy. Others are seeking trade agreements either with large blocks of countries or with larger, younger, faster-growing, relatively closed economies with a lot more to bargain into a negotiation than we have to offer. That is the reality of international trade, and we have to grasp it.
I shall finish by going back to my original point about what the Prime Minister negotiated in Brussels. This package is not everything, but nor is it nothing. In particular, the renegotiation in the package reassures those members of the public with doubts—people with genuinely sceptical minds—that they can support UK membership again by making it clear that the EU’s talk of ever-closer union is not a catch-all provision driving continuous political integration, by removing the right of EU nationals to unconditional and immediate welfare benefits and by giving appropriate protection to our economy from the operation of Europe’s single currency, which we should not join and from which our businesses should not suffer any discrimination as a result of our being outside it.
This is not the end of reform in Europe. It is a start. Reform is a process; it is not an event. This package is, in effect, a bridge. It is a bridge that people with genuine doubts can walk back across in order to support the European Union in good faith, and I hope they will do so on 23 June.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I so much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, had to say about Europe at last changing and feeling the impetus of the external events that cause it to reform. This is such a bad time, especially when we have friends, particularly Germany, who can help us reform and change Europe in the direction that he talked about and that I would strongly support.
I do not think my memory is playing me false when I recall hearing Mr Michael Gove in the context of the Scottish referendum saying to the people of Scotland, “We accept, of course, that you are a nation. We accept, of course, that you have sovereignty, but we believe that your sovereignty is best exercised when pooled with that of the United Kingdom in Scotland’s interest”. There you have it. That is the argument. Quite so. It strikes me as odd that having articulated that and having realised that fact he then makes the conclusion that what is good for Scotland is not good for the United Kingdom within the European Union.
The case for getting out seems to me to rest on a strangely old-fashioned, almost Victorian, view of sovereignty—the days of Bagehot and Dicey, when all power rested in the nation state. It is no longer true. I suspect that there is now more power resting on the global stage today that affects the lives of ordinary citizens than is vested in the institutions of nation states like ourselves. The question is: how do you deal with that? There was a day when you could divide policies between domestic and foreign. You can no longer do that. There is no domestic issue that does not have a foreign quotient with it: not jobs; not the environment; not terrorism, which is international; not crime, which is international; not the creation of systems of security, when we pooled our sovereignty. We pooled our sovereignty right from the days of NATO; that is what NATO was about. There is no sovereignty a state has that is more important than the sovereignty to defend itself, yet we found it entirely in the national interest to pool that sovereignty with others to give us better protection for ourselves. That is the reality today.
The question is: how do you deal with those global forces? Are they better dealt with alone, singularly, acting unilaterally, or in concert with your friends with whom you share so many interests? Manifestly, it is the latter. There are those who argue, “Of course, we could set up these trade deals with other people”. It would take a long time, by the way; it has taken Canada 10 years and it has not got there yet. It will take us a long time to set up a trade deal with, say, China. But how does that help us tackle crime on our streets when that is a European problem best tackled through the European arrest warrant on a European basis? How will it help us to create the clean environment that we want for the people of this country, when pollution is no respecter of borders? It is the deals we reach with our European partners that deliver what we want for our citizens.
I am a passionate European—not just because I believe in Europe; I find something attractive to this idea that it has put an end to war of 1,000 years, with the slaughter of countless millions of our young, by bringing ourselves together. I am also a passionate European because I remember in Bosnia, when I was trying to build peace after war, that it was the institutions of the European Union that gave me more assistance in creating those institutions of the state—a legal institution, a customs institution, and intelligence services. The European Union is a massive soft power that, acting together, helps to build peace after conflict. There is no better.
However, I am a much more passionate European for one other singular reason: there is nothing I want to see delivered for the people of Britain that cannot better be delivered by acting in partnership with our European Union partners than by acting alone. Nothing. We can tackle crime better through the European arrest warrant. We can create the environmental cleanliness we need because we can do that on a European basis. We can create better security. Yes, we can tackle refugees better, too. People look at this and say, “It’s the refugee issue that’s now persuading us not to vote for Europe”. This is madness: this is not a new problem; this is an old problem that goes back for 1,000 years or more—the vast passage of peoples—and is much better dealt with on a European, regional basis than on a singular one.
If you think this is a new problem, let me tell you it is not. It will not stop at this either, because this will be one of the great strategic issues of our time—mass movements of people stimulated by war, pestilence, and plague, but above all by global warming. It is only if we work together that we can deal with that. The Prime Minister is right: if we were to withdraw from this process, the probability is that Sangatte would turn up at Dover.
I recognise that the European Union is not dealing with the refugee issue very well, although it is somewhat hypocritical of us to criticise having taken not a single one of those miserable, desperate people tramping across the muddy roads of the Balkans to get to us. We have helped, by providing a home and assistance, not one of them. For us to do nothing to solve this problem and then carp and criticise Europe for not dealing with a million people in very short order is hypocrisy. They will get there over time. It will not be easy. It will not be elegant. But they will. This will be a major strategic issue for us in future, and it will be working regionally, together, that will assist us to solve that. I know that. I went not long ago to Kuala Lumpur to talk to the ASEAN nations which are already coming together to sort out the problems of massive movements of people out of the flooding Ganges delta.
Here is the thing I do not understand—I genuinely do not. Do we not understand how much the terms of trade of our existence have altered these past 10, 15 or 20 years? We no longer have a United States looking east across the Atlantic; it is looking far more west across the Pacific now. We no longer have the United States to act as our defender of last resort—our friend in all circumstances. It has its interests in the world and they do not necessarily coincide with ours. Meanwhile, on our eastern borders, we have a Russian President aggressively trying to destabilise and divide Europe. We can be sure that Vladimir Putin would be voting for us to leave as that is what he wants to see happen. He wants to divide Europe; that has been Russian policy for ages, and essentially we would be assisting him in doing so. To our south-east, the Arab world is in flames and, to our south, the Maghreb is in turbulence, reaching right down into Africa. All around us, new economic powers are growing up, individually more powerful than any of the European nations individually.
And should we believe that this is the time for us to abandon our solidarity with our European neighbours in such a turbulent and dangerous world, and the time for us to adopt the illusory sovereignty of a cork bobbing around behind other people’s ocean liners? That is the way to serve the worst interests of this country. By so doing, we would diminish our influence, we would diminish our protection and we would diminish our capacity for success.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I confess that I was rather surprised when I came in to find that I was in such an exalted position on the speakers list. Now I have to follow that impassioned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, so I am in some difficulty. But I shall try my best. First, I say to voters: when all the political parties are agreed, beware. Beware, beware, beware. I say to the Government, referring to the title of this debate, that those who always wish to get the best of both worlds very often get the worst of both worlds because they are being too greedy.
I turn to the statutory instrument arranging the referendum for 23 June. I would have thought, bearing in mind that the referendum need not take place until the end of next year, that the Government would have taken more time in the negotiations to get a better deal than the sad one that they have got. They would also have had the advantage of asking the Tory Party at its conference in October whether its members agreed with what the Government had brought back from the negotiation.
I have to declare myself straightaway; I always do. I was against joining the EEC, or the Common Market, in 1973, and now that the EU has gained so much additional power in policy fields other than trade, I am even more convinced that we should leave it as soon as possible and have the power in this country to decide our fate and future. I remind those people who say that the direction of the EU is not towards integration that at the beginning of this month the six original members of what was then the EEC proposed that the eurozone should become a fiscal power and have power in military matters as well. So in fact the direction is not backwards but forwards to, as they say, a more integrated Europe.
I cannot help feeling that the Prime Minister made a demeaning spectacle when he went to Europe and did not demand but pleaded with them to give him some concessions that would enable him to recommend that Britain should remain in the EU. I am afraid that he has not come back with anything at all of that sort: indeed, the concessions are pitiful. They are virtually as pitiful as the concessions brought back in 1972—possibly 1973, or was it 1974?—by Harold Wilson, which turned out to be no concessions at all.
He, too, promised that there would be no economic and monetary union. He gave that assurance. Well, we know what happened to that assurance. Now the Prime Minister is assuring the country that we will never join the euro. He cannot make that promise. The parliamentary situation arranges that. As he well knows, no parliament can bind its successor and there is no agreement, national or otherwise, that can alter that constitutional position. So he is promising something which he cannot properly deliver.
I am sick and tired of being told by politicians, self-serving multinationals and foreign potentates that Britain must remain in the European Union—not only for Britain’s sake but for their sakes. We now have to arrange our affairs to suit the rest of the world, not to suit our own country. I remind the Government that they are here to serve British interests and not the interests of those people.
Britain has survived and thrived for 1,000 years as an independent country. Even in the face of hostility from European countries, it would do so free of the incubus of the EU. We need a country that is governed for itself—Britain governing for itself through its own institutions which have been with us successfully for the last 1,000 years.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, it is easy to be swayed in one’s opinions by powerful speeches in your Lordships’ House. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I felt a burning desire to stay within the EU. To be fair on him, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, half way through his speech I felt an immediate urge to leave.
I last spoke on the EU debate in 1975, so I thought it was about time I tried again. A lot has happened since then. We have had the Single European Act, Maastricht, and one must not forget that the one political party that campaigned to leave the EU in 1983, led by Michael Foot, was the Labour Party.
I make no secret that I am slightly Eurosceptic—it is difficult not to be. The euro is a failed concept. Schengen, as we see, is collapsing. The EU machine is often neither representative nor responsive to those it represents. We know that the Commission’s accounts have not been signed off by its auditors for many years. Despite that, we have benefited by being a member of the European Union. However, we must not exaggerate its successes. It is not the EU that has prevented European wars; it is NATO that has kept us safe. We could, of course, survive easily outside the EU with secure borders and new trade agreements, however long that might take to accomplish. Having said that, following the recent successful negotiations, I believe we can also have a better continuing future within a reformed European Union.
It is not an easy process. When recently touring European capitals and talking to their politicians, I found that they all wanted us to stay in the European Union. They claimed that without us it might collapse and other countries might leave. Yet those same politicians fought tooth and nail against every change, every sentence, every dot and comma when the Prime Minister sought to renegotiate terms, so much so that even the Eurocrats—or European civil servants as I think they now like to be called—looked accommodating and reasonable in the process.
Lined up against the Prime Minister were formidable opponents. The Prime Minister succeeded way beyond expectations in his negotiations and I have nothing but admiration for the way he achieved the outcome. As someone who has known the Prime Minister probably longer and better than anybody else in this Chamber, I never doubted the ability, toughness, determination and intellectual rigour that he would bring to the negotiations.
The agreements are a substantial change to our relationship with the European Union. However, it is fair that I should ask the Minister a couple of questions. Should there be a successful stay-in referendum, what would happen if the European Parliament rejected some important elements of the deal? As we know, MEPs cannot be forced to vote one way or the other. The Attorney-General has said that the European court has to take the treaty changes into account and that the agreement is legally binding. In the past, the European court has been expansionist in its remit, so what would happen if it rejected a part of the agreement? I am no lawyer, so I look forward to my noble friend explaining this to me.
The other issue that the Minister did not mention is that, at one point, the Government floated the idea of a European Supreme Court to act as constitutional longstop to regulate the impact of EU law in this country in a similar way to what happens in Germany. I wonder whether that is still on the agenda and, if so, perhaps my noble friend will tell me how it would work.
My final plea is this: let this be the start of a reform of the EU into something that can adapt in the ever-changing world. We cannot allow this agreement to be the end of the process of reform. There is no right or wrong in the decision that we all have to make. There are compelling arguments on both sides. However, having weighed up all the arguments, I will be voting in the referendum to stay in the EU. I believe that our Prime Minister has made considerable progress and is the best person to lead this country forward in the continuing reform of the European Union.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a pretty gripping debate so far, and it has only just started—so gripping, in fact, that I have scrawled all over my notes and completely ruined them, even though I took the trouble, unusually, to type out my speech.
I too am a passionate pro-European, but I am an academic and would put it in a rather more muted way than the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, did. As my noble friend Lady Morgan said, this world is, by far, now more interdependent than ever before. That interdependence, connected to the expansion of global markets and an emerging global system of law, has fuelled a very rapid process of economic development in some of the poorest parts of the world. At the same time, large-scale tensions and conflicts have been generated too. Some of the most dangerous are today concentrated in the European neighbourhood. Wide-ranging collaboration is needed to separate the benefits from the risks and to manage them. The EU has an essential role to play here, as is emphasised in the document we are considering today.
I only wish that the opportunity had been taken to question some of the easy nostrums of those who would have Britain quit the EU. For instance, they routinely assert that the EU is a quagmire of bureaucratic regulation and the enemy of flexibility and progress, as though this were some unquestionable truth. Yet it is obvious that collaborative rules very often limit and reduce bureaucracy rather than the reverse. There could be no European single market without commonly agreed procedures and protocols that have to be stuck to. Imagine what would happen if 28 states had to agree individual trade deals with one another and in a rolling fashion. As the report makes clear, effective European security depends upon cross-border collaboration. The problem with the refugee crisis today is the lack of such effective collaboration between EU states, rather than an excess of it, and in this case the knock-on consequences could be very serious indeed. For me, it is in fact a terrifying example of what can happen when consensus breaks down and nations start again to see the world primarily through the narrow lens of self-interest.
A favourite adage of many Eurosceptics is that in today’s world small is beautiful. I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, which was a nuanced one. He has been an eloquent interpreter of this position. If one develops that view, free from the shackles of the EU, the UK can, as it were, float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, daily picking up trade deals here, there and everywhere. The EU, it has been said, is an analogue organisation in a digital world. Try telling that to the negotiators putting in place the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the biggest free trade deal ever implemented, should it be finalised. The US has made it clear that Britain acting in isolation would have no chance of joining up. Size and clout still count for an awful lot in world affairs. The EU holds 16% of global trade, compared to 14% for China and 10% for the US. The US, China and India have all made it clear that they want the UK to stay in the European Union. Britain exerts much influence in the world, given that it is a country of only some 60 million in a world of 7 billion, but it does so in some large part through collaboration and the attempt to enforce common rules within the EU itself, in NATO and in the UN.
Nor is it the case that leaving the EU would magically allow the UK to restore tight control over migration. Switzerland is not a member of the Union, but has negotiated a deal which allows access to the single market, as Britain would also have to do. To do so, the country had to negotiate 120 separate agreements with the EU. Yet Switzerland has a far higher ratio of immigrants per head of population than the UK does—more than twice the proportion, in fact.
As I messed up my speech, I will cut it short. The natural impulse is to revert to traditional political battle lines at this point. Many aspects of the approach taken in the report could be questioned, but keeping Britain a full and influential member of the EU is crucial to the country’s future. I hope that all of us who share such a goal will work together on a cross-party basis, setting aside other political differences, to achieve this end.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, in well over 40 years as a Member of one House or another of this Parliament of ours, I have never before known such a blatant campaigning document—not least one that is so economical with the truth—masquerade as a Government White Paper. The title itself, I have to say, is a lie—The Best of Both Worlds: The United Kingdom’s Special Status in a Reformed European Union. The European Union has manifestly not been reformed, and, such is the nature of the beast, is almost certainly unreformable. Britain’s so-called special status may well, should we remain in the European Union, prove to be not the best but the worst of both worlds. It is certainly very much worse than being outside the European Union.
Those of us who wish to leave the EU are asked to say what our alternative is to our membership, so I will answer that question. The alternative to being a member of the European Union is not being a member of the European Union. It may come as a great shock to the little Europeans in our midst, but most of the world, including significantly the fastest-growing countries in the world, are not in the European Union. As one who for a number of years had responsibility for the conduct of economic policy in this country, I have little doubt that we would prosper more if we were not a member of the European Union.
As for the contents of the White Paper, there is one curious and significant omission. It fails to mention the single most important feature of the Brussels agreement of 19 February—namely, the declaration:
“Member States not participating in the further deepening of the economic and monetary union will not create obstacles to but facilitate such further deepening”.
Thus, at a stroke, we have given up our ability to veto a further transfer of powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union—should we remain in the European Union—that it believes is necessary for further economic integration. Not so much White Paper as white flag. Moreover, it completely undermines the claim in the White Paper that more powers cannot be transferred from the United Kingdom to the European Union without the United Kingdom agreeing.
What then of the exit mechanism in the welcome event of the referendum being won by the leavers? There is much talk of having to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and of the process taking up to 10 years or even more. This is balderdash. If it requires Article 50 to leave the EU, the 1975 referendum would have been a fraud as the Lisbon treaty dates back only to 2007. Article 50 refers to the EU’s recommended procedure for negotiating the nature of the relationship of a member that has left the EU with the surviving European Union.
As the Prime Minister has frequently pointed out, Parliament is sovereign and we can at any time leave the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act 1972, which makes UK law subordinate to European law. Indeed, Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty states:
“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.
In the case of the United Kingdom, our only constitutional requirement is the repeal of the 1972 Act.
Among the many grossly misleading scare stories peddled by the Government—whose only argument, I regret, is Project Fear, with nothing positive at all—is that we would have to renegotiate all our trade agreements with countries outside the European Union. The plain truth is that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. The great bulk of our trade with the rest of the world is regulated by our membership of the WTO and would remain wholly unchanged.
Lord Mandelson
Does the noble Lord accept that 60% of British exports are covered by the free trade agreements negotiated and won by the European Union on our behalf—60%?
Lord Lawson of Blaby
The great majority of the agreements we are party to through the WTO and its predecessor, GATT, were concluded before 1995, when, at that time, the European Union or its predecessor was not even a member of the WTO or GATT.
As for the argument that you need to be a member of the so-called single market to trade with the single market, that is an equal nonsense. Indeed, exports into the single market from countries outside it have, for many years now, grown much faster than UK exports to the single market. After all, the weighted average of the European Union’s common external tariff is only 3.6%. The prospect of our not being able to secure a far better free trade agreement than little Switzerland is minimal.
Certainly the future is uncertain. That, after all, is its nature. But the uncertainty surrounding Britain’s future within the European Union, should we decide to stay, is far more worrying than regaining our freedom. The EU’s blundering route to political union—for that is what it is all about; that is the purpose of the whole enterprise—will continue and, even though we have secured an opt-out from political union, we will remain shackled to it: a sort of colonial status.
This referendum debate is not primarily about economics. It is about whether we in this country wish to take control of our own affairs and to be a self-governing democracy with a global rather than a merely European perspective.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could I press him to spell out what his alternative is? He is the chairman of one of the leave organisations. He always raises a laugh—I have had the privilege of hearing it several times now—when he says that the alternative to being in is being out. But what does that freedom consist of? What kind of deal would he conclude?
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, contrary to the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, Britain has benefited from lower prices, more jobs, more trade and more investment by trading with the rest of the 27 European Union countries with whom we form the biggest, richest market in the world, amounting to more than 500 million people.
Our membership has been a considerable economic success, according to a new paper, The Growth Effects of EU Membership for the UK: A Review of the Evidence, by respected economic historian Professor Nick Crafts of Warwick University, in which he says:
“Membership has raised UK income levels appreciably and by much more than 1970s proponents of EU entry predicted … Joining the EU raised the level of real GDP per person in the UK compared with the alternative of staying in EFTA”.
His calculations suggest that the positive economic effects of membership have outweighed the cost of Britain’s EU contributions and red tape by a factor of about seven to one.
Thanks to European co-operation, more than 4,000 suspected criminals have been sent back to other EU countries and more than 700 suspects have been brought back to face justice in the UK from elsewhere in the EU, including one of the London bombers. If we left the EU, our borders would be weaker. More refugees would try to enter because we would no longer be covered by its Dublin agreement, which requires the country where asylum seekers first arrive—the Greek islands, for instance—to process their applications. But if they do end up somewhere else in the EU, such as Britain, we can send them back to where they first sought asylum. Britain has so far sent back about 12,000. If they get to Calais, the French authorities have to try to stop them coming to Britain. If we left the EU, the French would have no such obligation. Our border with France would shift from Calais to Dover, and when asylum seekers arrived, we would lose our right to send them back.
Our workers benefit from EU laws that ensure at least four weeks’ paid holiday and extended parental leave. Part-time workers have the same rights as full-time staff. The EU has also made flights cheaper, brought down credit card fees and abolished costly mobile phone roaming charges.
In 2014, the latest year for which figures are available, about 29 million British residents visited EU countries for holidays knowing they were protected by their European Health Insurance Card guaranteeing free or reduced-cost urgently needed treatment, including hospital admission.
Pollution does not stop at Calais, and high EU environmental standards mean we have cleaner air, beaches, rivers and seas.
Some of those advocating British withdrawal suggest that we can have our cake and eat it by staying within the European single market to retain the great bulk of our trade which is with EU countries. They want us to be like Norway or Switzerland, for example, but both those countries pay into the EU budget and also have to accept the free movement of people. Both countries must abide by EU trade regulations but have no role in the negotiations to make these regulations. They pay but have no say. So would Britain if we left: paying less but not that much less than we do now—about £7.5 billion rather than £10 billion a year now, on the Norway model.
In the case of Wales, because it receives more EU funding than any other part of the UK it would be worst hit by Brexit. Wales would end up paying the EU £320 million per year where we currently receive a net gain of £838 million per year. So each person in Wales could end up contributing more to the EU for much less. Instead of being given funding by Europe to tackle our problems, Wales would be paying into it to keep trading tariff-free.
On the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on the Airbus, it is now Franco-German owned, British Aerospace having cashed in its share. There will be no obligation if we have left the EU to keep 6,000 north Wales workers making Airbus planes. That would shift to the continent. Critics say that Brussels rules over us, but most EU laws require the agreement of both the European Parliament and national Government Ministers. So our elected European MPs and Ministers accountable to Parliament can vote against proposals that would harm British interests. We can also veto certain proposals, such as any attempt to impose taxes on us.
Does European Union membership mean that we give up our sovereignty? No—there is a difference between giving up and choosing to pool sovereignty, because that promotes British interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said, we have already given up our right to do what we like in defending Britain because we are members of NATO; we already pool sovereignty with the US and others, because by doing that Britain has stronger defences. Anybody attacking us invites retaliation by all the NATO nations.
Just 70 years ago we gave up our right to do what we liked on foreign policy by agreeing to establish the United Nations Security Council. Its resolutions have the force of international law. However, as a permanent member of the Security Council, we get to make the laws. By pooling sovereignty, the British people have greater influence in building a safer, more stable world. Pooling sovereignty can mean compromises, but we can better advance British interests by being right at the centre of NATO or the UN—and, indeed, the EU.
In today’s global village, power shared means power regained. On trade, we live in a global marketplace. Opening it up further depends on our clout in world trade negotiations, and as my noble friend Lord Mandelson has said, only the EU collectively has that clout, including protecting British exporters against unfair competition.
Of course, Europe is not perfect. Nothing is—not our local councils, not our own families or football clubs, not even your Lordships’ House. Does that mean we should opt out of them too? The EU does need reform, which is why we need to be right there on the pitch as a key player, not sitting in the stands, moaning as a spectator and suffering in cold isolation.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in contributing to this important debate, let me say at the outset that I carry no torch for the EU as an institution. I have attended far too many frustrating EU military committee meetings in the Justus Lipsius building, and watched with dismay the often arcane operations of the bureaucracy, to have any rosy illusions concerning the nature of the beast. However, bureaucracy and uncomfortable compromises are far from being the sole preserve of Brussels.
The underlying assumption of all civilised society is that by surrendering untrammelled freedoms we gain a net benefit. Not all consequences will be positive for every individual and group; some will be unwelcome, and will arouse antipathy and even anger. But we do not enter into such arrangements in order to satisfy all our desires and wishes. We do so because, on balance, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
The question, therefore, is not whether we find any particular measure or restraint to be repugnant, but what the overall balance sheet looks like. There are, however, two significant challenges to such an approach. The first is that the value we attach to each particular benefit will vary between individuals and between groups, depending upon their separate interests and priorities. The second is that it can often be difficult to recognise, and if recognised to quantify, all the effects of freedoms foregone and benefits accrued. The current debates on our EU membership frequently centre on issues such as jobs, trade, net migration flows and so on. Even here there is a wide divergence of view on which figures should go where on the balance sheet. But there are more intangible—though no less important —issues, such as the effect on our overall long-term competitiveness. How is that to be weighed and accounted for?
I leave the answer to that and similar economic questions to those more qualified to speak on them, and for my part turn to the issue of security. Too often the debate on the EU turns on what our membership does for us in terms of direct gratification. It is of course right that we should look at the question from the perspective of national interest; but our national interest is not simply a matter of direct gains and losses. We cannot change our geography by referendum, and our position in Europe has always in large measure defined our interests. Our national security is inextricably linked to the security of the rest of the continent. In that regard, at least, we must ask not only what Europe can do for us, but what we can do for Europe—not out of altruism, or a sense of good neighbourliness, but out of sheer, hard-nosed self-interest.
One gets the impression that some people would be prepared to contemplate the decline of the rest of Europe provided that we could sit on the sidelines. The problem is that we are not and cannot be on the sidelines. Whether we like it or not, we are and will remain on the pitch. We therefore have a vested interest in helping to deliver the right result.
Let me give one example of where we have done so. For a number of years, some important members of the EU wanted to create military command structures that were separate from and parallel to those of NATO. Such duplication would have not only been a waste of scarce resources, but served to undermine and weaken the coherence of the alliance. We therefore opposed the proposition and carried the day. We could not have done so had we not been a member of the EU.
NATO today is stronger than it would otherwise have been thanks to the UK’s position in Europe. This is crucial, because NATO is at the heart of our national security arrangements. That will remain the case, but the EU also has a key role to play. Our national security depends on the power that we can wield in the international arena. Power comes in many forms, but it almost always relies, in the final analysis, on economic strength. Given our dependence on European security for our own protection, we have a fundamental stake in the economic success of Europe as a whole, not just of the UK alone.
The EU also has the capacity to wield soft power, in a way that is not open to NATO. The EU was an important player in reaching an agreement with Iran on that country’s nuclear programme. The EU responded to Russian aggression in Ukraine with a sanctions regime, the robustness of which came as a surprise to many—not least, I suspect, to President Putin. Putin fears and hates the EU. That alone should give us some clue to its security value.
In terms of economic clout and soft power, just as much as military force, we are reliant on partnerships to create the level of capability necessary to protect and advance our national security interest. They must be partnerships in which we play our full role, in which our voice is powerful and compelling, and in which we have a major influence over strategic security goals. That is the case today in the EU, and that is why I believe our continued membership to be so important.
As ever, there is much to be said on the debit side. EU members do not invest nearly enough in defence. The arrangements for co-operation between the EU and NATO are currently unsatisfactory. The EU tends to get ideas above its station, and as a result sometimes risks strategic overreach. These are all significant weaknesses that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency within the EU. The UK can do much within the EU to tackle them. Outside it we can do nothing, but inside or outside we will have to live with the consequences.
There is much that I dislike about the EU and there is much that I would like to see changed. I trust that we will go on championing the cause of such change in a way that attracts others to the colours. But when I consider the perils that loom over our continent, when I look at the dangers facing the UK within Europe and when I think of the scale of response necessary to meet those challenges, I feel myself compelled to agree with those who claim that, for the UK, the one thing worse than being a member of the EU is not being a member.
Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, working with Populus Ltd, which is a client of my consultancy business.
I have already seen the huge contribution made by noble Lords in this Chamber—the expertise and knowledge brought to scrutinising legislation and to great debates about the issues facing our country. I have seen, too, the huge work and wider public service of noble Lords outside this House. It is a great privilege and a considerable responsibility to join your Lordships’ House and I thank noble Lords from all sides for being so warmly welcoming.
Most days I am lost here—either actually lost in a corridor or lost in comprehending how this Chamber works. The doorkeepers, attendants and staff across the House demonstrate huge skill, courtesy and great discretion. My thanks to the wonderful staff, who have so often put me literally or metaphorically back on the right track, is heartfelt.
I thank my mentor, my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, for her always wise advice, and my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord Cooper of Windrush, who supported me at my introduction. I first worked closely with my noble friend Lord Taylor when he chaired the volunteer side of the Conservative Party in the dark years after our general election defeat in 1997. He was driven by a commitment to public service. His remarkable courtesy, integrity and good humour served my party well—as they clearly do your Lordships’ House today. By contrast, I first worked with my noble friend Lord Cooper in the years immediately before that historic 1997 general election defeat. I deny that our contribution to that campaign was a decisive factor in that result. I learned much from my noble friend.
I was brought up and first got involved in politics in Pontypool in south Wales, the birthplace and political nursery of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and represented in Parliament by the great social reformer Leo Abse and more recently by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who I am delighted has joined your Lordships’ House. I saw in Pontypool that politics was about public service. It was a Labour town but with an active Conservative Party and thriving community organisations. My father, who I am sad was not here to see me at my introduction, was very active in our local community. He epitomised selfless public service as well as being something of a pantomime impresario. I saw that so often the same people who were involved in the stuffing of envelopes for political parties one day would be at the counter of the charity shop the next. I felt then, as I do now, that getting involved in and working for any political party and fighting for your beliefs is valuable, decent and honourable.
This referendum campaign will have a profound impact on future generations. As a participant, I am very conscious that it has the capacity to both divide parties and bring people from different parties together. I hope that we will have a debate that will engage citizens who have never been involved in politics, and that we will all conduct ourselves in a way that increases long-term participation in our politics.
My noble friend the Minister emphatically outlined the nature of the new settlement in Europe that the Prime Minister negotiated for Britain. I believe that it gives us the best of both worlds. We will influence the decisions that affect us—decisions that would still affect us if we left the EU but over which we would have no influence. The deal secured for Britain also shows that the EU is capable of reform—reform that I have no doubt this Prime Minister will vigorously pursue in the interests of Britain and Europe.
The changes that he negotiated in the four key areas of welfare and free movement, sovereignty, economic governance and competitiveness have long been called for by many of those who will be on the other side of this campaign to me. I accept that those of us who wish to remain in the EU have a responsibility to show why our continued membership is positively in the interests of Britain. We will make that positive argument about the jobs that depend on our trade with Europe, the lower prices in our shops and the safety that our co-operation with European partners brings us. But those who would see us leave the EU really need to show in detail what Britain’s future relationship with Europe and the rest of the world would look like and not just tell us that it will all be okay in the end because Germany will still want to sell us its cars. There is more to it than that.
Finally, there is so much that unites us in the Conservative Party. While I do not relish a campaign in which I will be on the opposite side to friends of mine, I commend the words of Dr Liam Fox MP, who said:
“Those who wish to remain in the EU are not ‘unpatriotic’ and those who wish to leave are not ‘idiots’”.
He is of course right. I very much hope that in this campaign we can have the best of both worlds: a vigorous and hard-fought yet respectful campaign that lives up to the huge decision we are taking at the same time as we engage people who have never participated in political campaigns before. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their welcome and hope I can contribute to the work of this House in the years ahead.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Gilbert of Panteg and to congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He and I have known each other for many years, have served our party for many years and share the very considerable advantage of having started our lives in south Wales. On the issue before your Lordships’ House this afternoon we differ, but I echo the hope and aspiration of my noble friend that we can express our differences with courtesy and mutual respect. I think—though others may differ—that we have just about kept to the right side of that line this afternoon during our exchanges, and I hope we will continue to do so in the months ahead, because one thing is absolutely clear: on 24 June—whatever the result of the referendum—the Conservative Party will have to come together. It will continue to have the responsibility of governing our country for at least another four years, and probably, given the current state of Her Majesty’s Opposition, for quite some considerable time after that. So we must, and we will, then come together under the continuing and outstanding leadership of the Prime Minister. We must bear that in mind and, indeed, keep it in the forefront of our minds, over the next four months.
Why is it, then, that on this issue I feel compelled to speak out against the Prime Minister, whom I have known and admired for nearly 25 years? It is partly because I have come to the conclusion that the European Union, in its present form, is a flawed and failing project, which is making its inhabitants poorer than they should be and because it is failing—contrary to what has been said by some of your Lordships this afternoon—to keep its people safe. But it is mainly because, in its present form, it is undermining and eroding our cherished principle of democracy. Of the many gifts which our country has given the world, the gift of democracy—of democratic self-government—is the greatest. At the heart of that democracy is a connection between the votes cast at our general elections, the Governments they elect and the accountability which comes from the ability of the voters to turf out a Government who fail to keep their promises.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does the noble Lord not appreciate the irony of what he has just said in this Chamber?
Lord Howard of Lympne
I am talking about the way in which our country is governed and our Government are elected. That principally is the responsibility of the other place. If a Government, having made their promises to the electors, are unable to keep their promises, not as a result of some conscious decision on the Government’s part but as a result of a decision of the unelected European Commission, or the unaccountable European Court of Justice, that crucial connection is broken. That is why our membership of the European Union in its current form undermines and erodes our democracy.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
If the noble Lord had not used the word “unelected”, I would not be asking this question, but does he feel no twinge at all about criticising an unelected institution elsewhere when he comes from an institution that bears no connection with democracy whatever?
Lord Howard of Lympne
I have explained the answer to that. Our Government are chosen democratically by the free and fair votes of the people of our country. I believed—and, indeed, continue to believe—that it would be possible to reform the European Union in such a way as to mitigate that damage. But despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister, that is not currently on offer. That is why I shall vote to leave on 23 June.
Our opponents ask us what alternative arrangements we would make if we left. I will quote the words of Jacques Delors. However, bearing in mind the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I will quote him not on the prospects of further integration but on the alternative arrangements that would be available to the United Kingdom. He said:
“If the British cannot support the trend towards more integration in Europe”—
which I think we are all agreed we cannot—
“we can nevertheless remain friends, but on a different basis. I could imagine a form such as a European economic area or a free-trade agreement”.
The impression has been created, not least in this debate—it permeated the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—that if we left we would be some kind of supplicant. But we are the fifth biggest economy in the world. We are a market to which everyone wants access. We are, in fact, the biggest market for the rest of the European Union and we run a very substantial deficit in our trade with them. The document Possible Models for the United Kingdom Outside the European Union, which was published today, is replete—page after page is full of this—with the difficulties we would have in obtaining access to the European market. However, it makes scant reference to the need for others to have access to our market in our country—the fifth biggest economy in the world. Of course the Germans would want to continue to sell us their BMWs and Audis. Of course the French would want to continue to sell us their wine. They are sensible people; it is in their interests to trade with us on free and fair terms, so I have no doubt that we would reach an agreement with them in a relatively short period of time. We need to recover our national self-belief; we need to recover our national self-confidence; and we need, above all, to recover control of our nation’s affairs. We can achieve that only by voting to leave on 23 June.
Lord Radice
We have heard a very impressive maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and look forward very much to what he will have to say in the future. I hope that the Conservative Party takes note of what he says about it and what it needs to do after the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Howard—I was going to say my noble friend—has, as usual, made a very eloquent speech on this subject. I have heard quite a few of them in the past and his speech today was well up to standard.
Of course, if we went into the past, we might express strictures about the background that led up to this referendum. I will not take that up today, except to say that David Cameron—like Harold Wilson in 1975—had the referendum imposed on him not so much by a democratic groundswell, as has been suggested from time to time, but by pressure from within his own party. However, we are where we are and the only aim now must be to win the referendum for staying in. That is what I will talk about in my few minutes. Judging by his recent performance, especially in the Statement he made to the Commons last week, the Prime Minister is now very much up to the task. Indeed, he made a most impressive speech. The deal he brought back from Brussels is a good one, certainly much better than many Eurosceptics had hoped for, because they were hoping that the whole thing would collapse. Of course, our former leader, Ed Miliband, confirmed that the deal also contains a number of commitments that were in our election manifesto, including that of the red card mechanism for national parliaments. But what is especially encouraging for the stay-ins is that David Cameron is now able to put forward, with all the authority of a British Prime Minister, the strategic case for staying in. That is a tremendous plus because it is this case and its persuasiveness, or lack of it—I think it will be its persuasiveness—which will decide the result of the referendum. It is not a question of the details of the package; it is the underlying strategy. As he made clear to the Commons, he believes— I like the words he used—that,
“Britain will be stronger, safer and better off … in a reformed European Union: stronger because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within … safer because we can work with our European partners to fight cross-border crime … and better off because British business will have full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower prices”.
It is worth quoting the words of the Prime Minister because he said them with great passion and, I think, sincerity. I think they are absolutely right. He said:
“There will be much debate about sovereignty”—
and we have heard about that this afternoon—
“and rightly so. To me, what matters most is the power to get things done for our people, for our country and for our future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/2/16; col. 25.]
That was not really addressed by the noble Lord.
What we have heard from the Prime Minister gives us the outline of a positive case for staying in but, without being negative, we are also entitled to put questions to the outers to which so far they have completely failed to respond. What is their alternative? The Government have published a report based on an analysis of some of the alternatives—Norway, Switzerland, Canada and the WTO model—which concludes:
“The UK Government believes that no existing model outside the EU comes close to providing the same balance of advantages and influence that we get from the UK’s current status inside the EU”.
The outers have to give a credible answer to this. They say it will be all right on the night, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. Sorry, it was not the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—he had better say something better—it was the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Lawson, but they did not come forward with a viable option. They were very good at criticising what everybody else had said but they did not have any answer themselves and they will have to do that if they are to go on television for the next four months.
Finally, the referendum is not only an internal battle between Tory ins and Tory outs. To win the debate, Cameron will have to persuade many non-Tory voters—above all, Labour voters—many of whom are concerned not so much with the details of his deal but with jobs, prices and labour and consumer rights. He has to take those into account. My advice to David Cameron is that until the day of the referendum he must aim to be a Prime Minister above party. He has to unite the nation behind the case for staying in because that is the way to do it. I believe that if he can do that, the majority of the British people will support that case.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
My Lords, referenda are unpredictable and this one is very unpredictable. In the period after the Convention on the Future of Europe, France and the Netherlands voted against the recommendations made by that convention, on which I served. It was pretty clear that the votes were not against the substance of the convention but against the Governments in office in those two countries. Both countries very speedily came round to acceptance of what the convention had done. We were rather delaying in this but we have seen it implemented in the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.
Personally, I would be opposed to a convention which could result in a real disaster for Britain. The disaster would be if we took ourselves out of the international, global debate and felt that we had to bend our knee to the European Union, which in my view would not necessarily be at all responsive to our begging to have access to the free trade area. I believe we ought to have a system that enables the European Union to continue its discussion about reform, perhaps along the lines of the convention of which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, was the secretary-general, to enable the public to be more aware of what is going on in the European Union. Unfortunately, the press, and to some extent the media, are not conveying the positives about the European Union. They seem to focus only on the adverse features and nations quarrelling with nations.
If we leave the European Union, we might have to follow Norway or Switzerland but I cannot believe we would find that route at all appealing. Norway and Switzerland pay into the amounts that are distributed by the Union. They have to accept what is laid down in European legislation and they do not have any voice in the discussions. If that were to happen to us, it would be a disaster.
We have to pool our sovereignty in many respects. We pool our sovereignty in global organisations such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the UN Security Council, but I do not believe that what we are engaged in in the European Union is necessarily pooling our sovereignty. We have a right to stand up against European legislation and we do from time to time, and we do it effectively. If we were to focus on expanding the trade within the European Union into services and digital, we would see a more positive outcome of these current debates.
The Union is in some difficulties at the moment in the eurozone but we are not part of the eurozone and we can help in ways that I think would be understood. We are capable of coming to terms with other countries but it is far easier to build up our trade relations with those countries, particularly big countries such as China and Japan, if we go into international agreements with the European Union and pool our resources. There are 500 million people in the European Union and we have considerable authority and respect as part of that. I hope that it will not be thrown away on 23 June.
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the debate so far has been characterised by both eloquence and passion and, if I may say, with a powerful maiden speech that exemplified both. I intervene briefly and primarily to clarify the position of your Lordships’ European Union Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair.
While no doubt many, if not all, our members hold strong personal views on this vital matter—some of them will be participating in this debate—as a committee whose remit is scrutiny and forensic inquiry we shall refrain from publishing any recommendation on which way to vote, and I, too, will respect this in relation to my personal position. In our view, our main job, both in service of your Lordships’ House and on behalf of the wider electorate, is to ensure that the recent deal is properly scrutinised. We will continue that work unabated until and indeed, if necessary, after the referendum is held, because there will be ongoing legal consequences of some of those decisions.
We are in the process of preparing a report to this House on the Government’s and others’ visions of European Union reform, which we will publish shortly. We are also looking at some of the specific legal implications of a vote to leave. I close my brief contribution by emphasising that, more widely, this work is intended to contribute to the national debate. I urge the Government to meet in full their undertakings and obligations to spell out clearly and intelligibly to the public the nature of the solemn choice they are to make.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on free movement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, remarked, this is not an issue to be ducked and I very much hope that it will not be ducked in this House. To my regret, my remarks will be rather critical. My regret is because I believe that, in regard to immigration, our country owes a considerable debt to the Prime Minister. In the face of strong and persistent pressure from business and academia, he stood firm in a major effort to reduce net migration, supported of course by his Home Secretary.
However, having followed these matters for some 15 years, I can only give my honest opinion. I feel bound to say that the outcome of the recent negotiations will have very little effect on immigration from the European Union. Our own research has shown that about half of EU migrants are single when they come and another quarter are couples with no children. Neither of those two groups qualifies for any significant benefits. It is hard to believe that the remaining quarter will make a significant difference to the overall inflow. It seems much more likely, surely, that the availability of work in the UK and the prospect of wages at a multiple of those at home will be far more persuasive.
I accept that some of the other provisions on child benefits, marriage to EU nationals and deportation of EU criminals are useful steps, but they are relatively minor matters. The central issue is whether we have regained, or will regain, the power to control the inflow of EU migrants to the UK. Net migration from the EU has doubled in the past two years to 180,000 a year, almost the same as the amount from the rest of the world, and we will be left with no means of controlling it. Looking ahead, the introduction of the national living wage may add further to the pull factor. The implementation of universal credit will reduce the significance of benefits as a pull factor and, therefore, the significance of the outcome of these negotiations.
Putting aside the detail, I am afraid that the only possible conclusion is that the so-called emergency brake—even if we can reach agreement on its use, and there are questions about that—will have little, if any, effect on the inflow. It follows that we face the prospect that the present massive levels of net migration will continue well into the medium term and beyond. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, there is a tendency for immigration to accelerate as existing diasporas help their friends and relatives to come and find work. Net migration currently stands at about 300,000. The Government’s own projections show that, even at 265,000 over the long term, the population of the UK would increase by about half a million every year. As I have said before in this House, and I make no apology for repeating it, that would mean building the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool every single year for years to come. That is a very serious prospect and it must be addressed by our political system.
The Government have made serious efforts on immigration over the past six years. They have done their best in these negotiations to tackle that part of the flow that is from the European Union. But they have been denied by the rigidities of the European Union treaties, its institutions and, arguably, its mindset. To be fair, the Government have not even claimed that they will be able to bring EU migration under control. That is for a very simple reason: they cannot do so. Nor will they be able to do so in future. There are indeed risks on both sides in this referendum decision and it will be a difficult one for all of us. One risk is that, if we stay in, we will renounce any control over the size of the population for the indefinite future—actually, that is not a risk, it is a certainty. It is certainly not the “best of both worlds”.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, while I am fully aware of the shortcomings and the nonsenses of the European Union, I speak tonight in favour of our staying within that organisation. I must say that I sometimes feel that my patience is tried by the way in which those who oppose it seek to deride it. My experience goes back a long way on this. I feel that the anti-European approach has not changed very much at all over the years. We still have the same people, or their philosophic heirs, bridling at the very word “Europe”.
I remember almost 60 years ago, in 1957, moving what I think was the first motion of the Conservative Party conference about Europe. Then, all we were asking for was that we should seek with others to form an economic alliance with the original six members, which eventually turned into EFTA. It was overwhelmingly agreed by the party conference but there was a substantial number of Conservatives who voted to oppose it at that time. That was nothing to do with the six—it was to found an economic association that, as I say, turned into EFTA.
Over the years, we have still had what I sometimes regard as the same mindless approach to anything that has a Europe tag to it, relating to the colour of passports, women’s institutes’ cakes and straight carrots. I remember back in the 1960s, when I was a member of one of the first departmental Select Committees down the road, which Dick Crossman set up, we had the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture saying that we should not join the European Common Market because we would then have to put up with grey kippers. It all reminds me very much of giving a dog a bone.
Now, of course, the Eurosceptic element is having a field day belittling the Prime Minister’s agreement to reorganise our relationship with the European Union. Quite frankly, they cannot have it both ways. They wanted many more fundamental changes than they have got, nearly all of which could be achieved only through a treaty. But within the timescale that the Prime Minister had set out of having a referendum before the end of next year, it would clearly be impossible to get a treaty through the processes. It was just not within the timescale and therefore treaty changes were impossible, but that is for the future.
We now have our new relationship with the EU. We are out of the euro; our borders are protected under the Schengen agreement; we have barriers to benefits for immigrants seeking them; and we are excluded from ever-closer union. This puts us into a new position, which is a sort of halfway house between full membership and solely being members of the EFTA agreement. That is an admirable position to be in and far better than being outside with little influence over crucial EU decisions, which could be very damaging to us.
Of course, not all Eurosceptic arguments are trivial in the way that I have talked about. One argument is to refer to loss of sovereignty and the desire for our Parliament here to make our laws. I do not object to a certain loss of sovereignty in this modern, global world but I do not hear dissent from those Eurosceptics when we come to consider the massive loss of sovereignty which we have with regard to NATO. It is a far greater loss of sovereignty when we commit our armed services to the possibility of our servicemen dying under the command of foreign generals. I am not against NATO in any way; I am vice-president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and as far as I am concerned, long live NATO.
As a former member and president years ago of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, I am convinced that the relationship between European Parliaments and Governments over these last 50 years or so means that, after 70 years without a great European war, much of that period of peace is due to the development of the European Community—not all of it, of course. I have two sons, and I regard the creation of the European Community as a principal reason for them not having been involved in such a great European conflict, unlike so many young people over the centuries who have died in a succession of European wars. I see this period of European peace as the greatest achievement of my political generation.
Lord Soley (Lab)
The only thing I would add to the economic debate is the importance of science and technology to this country. We, more than any other country in the European Union, benefit from the money that comes from it into our universities and science-based research establishments. Anyone who is thinking of leaving had better ask why the research establishments and universities in continental Europe would suddenly surrender the money that was being paid into the British universities and research institutes at their expense. I think that we would lose it. We are in fact a cutting-edge nation in science and technology, and part of the reason is the money that we get from the European Union.
That is a central part of the economic argument, but I want to make most of my comments on the political issue and follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, whose comments I have just heard. I was born shortly before the Second World War and it has often puzzled me that the British people tend to be more averse to the idea of a single European entity of some type, because my memory is that Europe was where the bombers came from. That is what you were brought up with, so one tended to be hostile to it. It is interesting today that although the bulk of the British people have for many years been very doubtful about Europe, the older population has been more opposed than the younger population, who were not brought up with the attitudes that I was about the First and Second World Wars. That is why, whatever happens on 23 June, in the long run this country will be more in favour of being in Europe than out of it.
It is this political argument that we need to discuss. I accept that economic arguments are likely to win or lose the referendum on 23 June, but that does not mean that the political arguments are unimportant. I fully understand and respect the feeling alive in the country that Europe is too bureaucratic, with too many rules and regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and others mentioned this. The tragedy, to my mind, is that the one country in the European Union that would be better at dealing with this than almost any other is in fact Britain. We were enormously respected in Europe after the Second World War. People wanted us to join what was then the European Community and eventually became the European Union. Now, sadly, many people think, “Well, if you don’t want to be in, don’t be in”. A very damaging movement has taken place.
Why were we wanted in? It is not just because we were victorious in the Second World War but because of what we did after the war to help rebuild Europe. Who wrote that magnificent constitution for Germany? It was very largely, but not entirely, the British. Who wrote the Court of Human Rights legislation? It was very largely the British. We are a rules-based society and although the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made much of the democracy point, which I agree with, he left out the all-important rule of law.
It is those two things together which have given this country stability over the generations—and it is that stability that Europe wants. Noble Lords may have heard the various comments from the United States in recent years about our position in Europe. The United States believes that that Britain brings stability to Europe. We are a leader in Europe—or, to be more precise, we were. In my judgment, we have lost that role to some extent in recent years because we have been the reluctant member.
I sometimes think that the arguments which UKIP uses for coming out of Europe almost reflect those which the SNP uses for coming out of the United Kingdom. They are similar arguments. Yet if you are a member of a powerful, successful and stable economic and political union, there are a lot of good arguments for staying part of it and being a leader within it. It was Britain’s role to be a leader. We are no longer the leaders of the world, as we were in the 19th century and early 20th century. We are no longer one of the top three powers, as we were for some 20 years or so in the post-1945 period. But, by heaven, we are an immensely powerful country in Europe. That leadership role which we had in Europe is one that we can have again—if we stop behaving like the spoiled child who tears up the textbooks when we do not like them.
A lot of things need change in Europe. Everything that has been said about the bureaucratic bits is right—but who is good at legislating to get rid of them, and legislating for the structures that enable you to have the rule of law and a laws-based society? We are. So I strongly urge everybody who wants to take part in this debate to think of our political role as a leading nation in Europe, which can set the terms of the EU and make it continue to be a successful, peaceful economic and political union. It gives so much to our people that we are in danger of losing. The arguments for it are very clear, and they are political as well as economic.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, this should be a great national debate. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend Lord Jopling in their speeches raised the level of the debate to where it ought to be. But it is also a debate within the Conservative Party. I very much associate myself with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Howard, Lord Howell and Lord Gilbert, in his notable maiden speech, who talked about the need for people within the Conservative Party to conduct the debate in a civilised fashion and to bear in mind that, after the referendum, we will still need to live together and govern together. That is something which, I hope, will colour the way in which the debate is conducted, at least on the Conservative side.
I believe that the Government’s White Paper, The Best of Both Worlds, should be seen as something of a prospectus. As such, it is open, like all such documents, to criticism; in years to come, aspects of it may turn out to have been mistaken. That is the nature of documents of that sort. But like it or not—and some noble Lords do not like it—it is a serious attempt to set out the nature of this country’s special position within the European Union following the Prime Minister’s successful negotiations. It gives companies a basis on which to plan their investments and supply chains; it gives individuals the opportunity to plan their careers and retirements, for those who live in other parts of the Union; it gives the Government the basis on which to plan important aspects of our economic and foreign policy and security co-operation with other member states, as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in his eloquent intervention; and it gives our partners and allies within and outside the European Union a degree of confidence in the reliability of this country and its effectiveness as a partner and ally.
The weakness of those who wish to withdraw from the European Union is that they have no similar document or even a coherent set of ideas about what Britain’s position outside the European Union would actually look like. They have been campaigning for many years for an in/out referendum; they have believed that, if such a referendum occurred, the country would vote to leave. Yet they have come completely unprepared into the battle. This shows the very great difficulty of drawing up a coherent plan of what this country’s role and position should be if we are not within the European Union. When one looks at the leaders of the out campaign, one finds that Mr Carswell has one view, Mr Farage has another view—and Mr Johnson, of course, has several views.
We all recognise that a vote to leave will lead to a period of uncertainty; I think that everybody accepts that. The present trade relations with the European Union will have to be unwound and replaced—likewise, those with other countries where our trade relations are governed by EU agreements. This will take a long time. I do not know how long it will take, but it will certainly take years rather than months, and people who invoke the Canada free trade agreement are surely aware that that took five years to negotiate and has still not been ratified. Parliament, meanwhile, will be dominated by the changes required to domestic legislation derived from the European Union. This will cover agricultural support, aspects of social policy, competition policy, the structural funds, the involvement of our scientific research with EU programmes and many other things. The Government will not just be dealing with international negotiations—we will be dealing with a massive programme of legislation in this Parliament, which will make the conduct of government, whichever party is in power, exceptionally difficult.
So when the people who wish to leave the European Union accuse those who point out these difficulties of indulging in Project Fear, what they really mean is that they do not have the answers to some very difficult questions. In that respect, they are in a very similar position to Mr Alex Salmond during the Scottish referendum, when he could not answer vital questions about the currency and other issues. But at least Mr Salmond knew the destination that he was aiming for—on that point he was quite clear—whereas, so far, I have not heard from those who wish to leave the European Union a coherent explanation of the destination to which they are going.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton (CB)
I hope I may be allowed to speak as a euro-Thatcherite, a designation of a very important political party, at the moment rather small but nevertheless eloquent and hopeful, in that we believe that we should carry through the reforms that Lady Thatcher created or inspired in this country, and also carry them through in the European Union. Some wise men have been able to speculate authoritatively about the attitude that Lady Thatcher might have had towards the questions posed about our referendum at the moment. Such foresight has been denied me. All that I can say is that I know that she would have disliked the idea of a referendum intensely, being historically well informed and knowing that a referendum has always been seen, in France and elsewhere, as an aid to dictatorship.
After the tumult of the referendum is over, it would be desirable to investigate why and how the British gave up their love of traditional representative government for all political decisions and adopted this alien plebiscitary procedure. Let us not have another one in our lifetimes, if ever. In this respect at least, let us draw closer to the United States, which has never had a referendum and has never even contemplated one, as far as I know. It would seem strange that the presence of the United States has never been mentioned very much as the alternative by those who wish to withdraw from the European Union. The idea of drawing closer to the United States does not seem the obvious solution.
Incidentally, we know where the British tradition would stand in relation to the referendum. Edmund Burke would have told his electors in Bristol very sharply about the iniquity of the idea, and I suspect that this would have been one occasion when William Pitt the Younger would have agreed with Edmund Burke 100%.
I turn to the specific subject of the debate, on which I have five observations. First, the exclusion that the Prime Minister has arranged from the idea of ever-closer union affecting us may turn out to mean less than it sounds, because it will probably be the motto or frame in which the other 27 countries will continue to work. I think that it is highly likely that we shall see in the next 50 years the creation of a European superstate of which this country will not be part. We shall have a relation with it and perhaps a creative relationship, but it will not be that of membership.
Secondly, somewhere in The Best of Both Worlds, the document that we are discussing, there should be some reference to the fact that, regardless of migration, taxation and other important political preoccupations, we should have some recognition that this country is intellectually, culturally and spiritually a real part of Europe, and has always been so. Thirdly, in relation to ever-closer union, the language of that document leaves much to be desired. Is it actually possible that a government White Paper can speak of a “burden reduction implementation mechanism”? I am afraid it does, twice, in footnote 7 on page 14 and in the last line of paragraph 2.38 on page 19.
Fourthly, it is desirable to recall that the preamble to the 1949 NATO treaty gives us our fundamental security, for it speaks of the alliance which binds us and inspires us being founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. As my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup pointed out in his remarkable speech, these are the essential pillars of our security.
Fifthly, contrary to the often eloquent opinions of noble colleagues, friends who I admire, the document is a remarkable agreement reached by a Britain determined to maintain itself as an independent nation state with a group of friendly allies, some of whom, for diverse reasons, as I rather suggested, will want to pursue a more united destiny. Of course there are weaknesses in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was quite right to draw attention to the lack of wisdom in using the word “never”. One should never use the word “never” in politics, as was said by the Minister of State who said that we would never leave Cyprus in 1957. It was Henry Hopkinson, later Lord Colyton.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was quite right to draw our attention to the need for further work on the details of the arrangements. With such revisions, we could, in the long run, devise a very good manifesto for a new deal which would live up to the inspiring words of Franklin Roosevelt 60 years ago.
I shall end on a different note: keep your implementation mechanism dry.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this important debate. I spent many years living and working in Japan, and I have seen how Japanese people in business and politics view the UK and the EU. I was proud to be vice-chairman of the European Business Council in Japan but holding that office did not require me to support the subjugation of English law to EU law or the adoption by the UK of EU political and judicial structures.
I have also worked in Brussels, where I was amazed at the excessive construction of huge buildings housing thousands of civil servants duplicating or taking over functions previously carried out by member states’ own Civil Services. We are, of course, fortunate in having my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford as European Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union. As he pointed out in his letter to the Times yesterday, he has brought forward two pieces of legislation, which have been warmly welcomed by the City, to kick-start securitisation to support lending and to simplify the requirements of the prospectus directive. However, there is no reason why our Financial Conduct Authority, freed from its subjugation to the European regulators, could not have introduced such measures. Besides, we cannot expect that the next British commissioner would be appointed to the same office. My noble friend’s predecessor, Michel Barnier, introduced the unnecessary and harmful alternative investment fund managers directive, even though there was little appetite in Brussels, until recently, to legislate to regulate a business sector that is principally based in the UK.
I wholeheartedly support doing everything that makes sense for us to do in collaboration with other European countries, many of which are members of NATO, which guarantees our national security. Our trade in both goods and services would not be much affected whether we leave or remain in the EU. I am quite confident that we could negotiate a satisfactory agreement with the EU and believe that we should resume our membership of EFTA. In addition to that, as proposed by the late Ronald Stewart-Brown of the Trade Policy Research Centre, we could negotiate to stay in Europe for trade through a new intergovernmental customs union agreement with the EU with full UK voting participation in customs union policy decisions and internal market harmonised trade regulation. We would be free to negotiate our own new agreements with other countries in areas such as trade in services and investment, which are currently EU competencies.
Just as Japanese companies and other international direct investors were unduly worried about our deciding not to join the euro, they are now unduly worried for similar reasons about the possibility of Brexit. I find they are considerably reassured if it is explained to them that the UK could expect to conclude a satisfactory basis of continuing to trade with the EU. In spite of the sterling efforts of my noble friend Lord Hill, our financial services industry is increasingly constrained by the EU supervisory and regulatory regime under which it is required to operate. On its own, the UK would never have chosen to introduce much of this EU financial services and insurance regulation. Most of our financial services and insurance exports to the rest of the EU are wholesale in nature and therefore not dependent on the UK’s EU membership. Arguably, the single market in services, especially financial services and insurance, is much more about EU integration through EU-wide legislation than it is about trade liberalisation. I believe the downside risks for the City of a well-negotiated UK withdrawal from the EU would be quite limited and comfortably outweighed by the benefits of being able to offer a more attractive and less cumbersome UK regulatory regime to foreign and UK investors, both for business with Europe and for exports to the larger, fast-growing markets in the rest of the world, free of the burden of inappropriate UK regulation.
I salute the Prime Minister for his dogged determination in trying to achieve as many as possible of the promises that he made to the electorate, but the negotiation process has revealed clearly just how difficult it is to get even relatively minor restrictions on benefits payments to migrants agreed, as just one example of how impotent we have become.
Many people argue that it would be a leap in the dark and involve too much risk for the UK to leave but, on balance, I believe that the greater risk for the UK lies in remaining a full member of an institution which, in order to recover from its current problems, needs to move in the opposite direction from where I believe we want to move. The eurozone needs to integrate and share more sovereignty, and I believe we will be less comfortable as a member of a more integrated EU as it moves inexorably towards statehood than we are now, notwithstanding the protections obtained by the Prime Minister for non-eurozone countries.
If our withdrawal from the EU were to deal a fatal blow to the European project, it might ironically force our European partners to morph the EU into a looser association based on free trade or free trade plus to which we might in turn be happy to belong. If associate member or trade member status were available for us now, I would certainly vote to remain, but the special status offered to us is not special enough and is not fundamentally different from the special status we have enjoyed before as a result of our various opt-outs. The train that we have boarded continues to travel in a direction in which we do not want to go, and now we have an opportunity to get off it. On balance, I think we should take it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to speak about something completely different. Some of the overwhelming reasons for remaining in the European Union have already been rehearsed—and for me they are compelling. They include 70 years without a major European or world war, economic arguments of preferential access to the single market, and the boost to our international influence by being part of a major power block capable of holding its own with the US, China and Russia in an uncertain and increasingly dangerous world.
There is, however, another reason as powerful as these—the environment. For the sake of our environment, on which human existence and prosperity depends, we must remain in the European Union. There are four reasons for that. First, the environment is no respecter of national boundaries—for example, half of our air pollution goes to Europe and it generously sends half of its pollution to us. The health of our seas, our migratory species of fish and birds and butterflies, and international patterns of waste management all depend on member states of the EU working together across national boundaries to negotiate, monitor and enforce common environmental standards.
Secondly, the vast majority of UK environmental standards are drawn from EU legislation: water and air quality, waste management, protection of wildlife sites and species of conservation importance, and the impact of chemicals on the environment and human health. Working together at an EU level, member states have been more ambitious than they would have been working separately and have worked harder on common implementation. Back in the 1980s, the UK was known as the “dirty man of Europe”, when we pumped raw sewage regularly into the seas and produced more sulphur dioxide and acid rain than any other European nation. We could have done something about this as the UK standing alone, but we did not. Since then, collectively working with our EU partners—egging each other on, as it were—we reached EU agreements that meant that sulphur dioxide pollution fell by almost 90% over 20 years. Now, 600 UK beaches are safe and pleasant to bathe on—apart from the dreadful weather—where fewer than 50 were previously. We no longer lose 15% of our most important sites for nature conservation every year in this country, which was the case before the habitats and birds directive was enacted.
Thirdly, the EU also brings environmental benefits beyond its borders. Collectively, the EU has muscle on the international environmental stage. It has been the leading voice in calling for international action on a range of conservation challenges and in negotiating with the biggest polluters and emitters globally. We would not have had the success that the Paris Climate Change Conference delivered globally without the leadership shown by the EU bloc.
Fourthly, higher environmental standards in Europe are not just about the environment. They drive innovation and technology and reshape markets. The UK has a green economy worth £112 billion and a £5 billion trade surplus in green goods and services. Shared EU standards in the single market can drive that further to the benefit of the UK economy.
What would happen to all this if we left the European Union? The document published today, Alternatives to Membership, outlines the difficult and lengthy processes that we would have to follow. Many of our UK environmental standards are not enshrined in UK law —they simply comply with European regulations. I am not confident that we would see equivalent UK environmental legislation put in place any time soon. Would a post-Brexit Government prioritise the protection and restoration of nature, for example? At best, we might negotiate an economic agreement with the single market that would require us to achieve some EU environmental standards, but we would be in the Norwegian position—if you will pardon the expression—of having to comply but having no influence on the shaping of these standards: the “pay, obey, but no say” position.
Those laws and regulations not covered by single-market rules would simply cease to apply. This would include important issues such as the habitats and birds directive that have driven action to bring threatened species back from the brink and have protected our most iconic and treasured habitats and sites.
We already have experience of what happens to environmental standards that depend entirely on UK law—they are highly vulnerable. Look at what the Chancellor did, at a unilateral stroke, in killing carbon capture and storage development, zero-carbon homes, onshore wind power and the Green Deal. Such fickleness undermines green markets and destroys investor confidence in green industries. EU environmental agreements may take a long time and a lot of effort to negotiate, but once they are there, they provide a degree of certainty for business and investors.
These are the environmental reasons why remaining in the EU is fundamental. If you care about clean water and air, safe beaches, thriving wildlife and an effective approach to climate change—if you care about human health as a result of a chemicals—you can only support remaining in the EU. This is why, a month ago, I co-founded Environmentalists for Europe with Stanley Johnson, Boris’s dad. This is important for two reasons. The first is to demonstrate that there are some sensible Johnsons, but it is also to ensure that people across the UK hear very clearly the case that only by remaining in the EU and working collaboratively with our EU partners can we protect a healthy environment for the people of the UK.
So let us get on with it. Support the statutory instrument. Roll on 23 June. Let us endorse our continuing EU membership so that we can stop trying to pursue isolationism dressed as sovereignty when the environment is not amenable to national boundaries or actions and so that we can focus on the much more important task of achieving more for shared security, economic development and a common environment through collaboration.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, in view of what I am about to say, I would like to make one point clear at the start. I am no cake-filled, misery-laden little Englander—or whatever phrase it was that a citizen of this country disparagingly made about this country recently. I happen to speak four European languages with varying degrees of competence and have spent a large part of my life working and living, on some occasions, in European countries with great pleasure. Time is obviously very tight today. I recently heard from the Minister that we will have more opportunities to debate this subject between now and 23 June. So I will confine my remarks to one point today.
First, I will make two preliminary comments. As everyone knows, what has become the European Union was started after World War 2, primarily by France and Germany as the European Coal and Steel Community out of, as my noble friend Lord Jopling said, an understandable desire that they should not fight each other again any time soon. My father, who was a Member of this place, along with many of his contemporaries who had lived through the war, was a keen supporter of Europe, if I may call it that. But as we know, what we now have bears very little resemblance to that first body. What started life as a trade organisation has grown into a political behemoth full of pretensions but also shot through with defects and weaknesses.
Of course, the clue is in the name: “the European Union”. Throughout this debate, and generally, people refer to this body as “the EU”. So just to remind ourselves of the inexorable direction of travel, let us call it “the European Union” and not by the shorthand.
I come now to my main point. I want to compare my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s 2013 Bloomberg speech, which I have recently read with great approval, with what in fact he brought back from his recent frantic negotiations. I ask whether it is reasonable for him to recommend the package achieved to the British people, given the pre-negotiation promise he made—that if he did not consider that what he had achieved was satisfactory, he would not recommend it to us.
As those of your Lordships who have read the Bloomberg speech will know, in it the Prime Minister set out his frank views of what is wrong with the European Union today and his vision of the ways it needs to reform itself, as well as the changes he regarded as essential to the UK’s relationship to the European Union.
The Prime Minister began by saying:
“For us, the EU is a means to an end—prosperity, stability, the anchor of freedom and democracy both within Europe and beyond her shores—not an end in itself”.
He went on to set out what he saw as the three major challenges facing the EU: first, how the eurozone problems are driving fundamental change in Europe; secondly, what he quite rightly called the “crisis of European competitiveness”; and, thirdly, the increasing gap between the EU and its citizens.
Regarding competiveness, he said:
“Europe’s share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades”.
Regarding the democratic deficit, he said that,
“there is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf”.
He commented that,
“the biggest danger to the EU comes not from those who advocate change but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy”.
Perhaps that comment might be rather relevant to this debate.
Finally, he said:
“My point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the eurozone. More of the same will not see the EU keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the EU any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same—less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs”.
In summary, I would say that it was a call for fundamental reform both of the EU itself and of our relationship with it. He went on in his Bloomberg speech to suggest four or five remedies for these three challenges: competitiveness, flexibility, the repatriation of powers and more democratic accountability and fairness.
Now let us look at what he brought back. First, I acknowledge sincerely the great personal effort that the Prime Minister obviously put into these negotiations in very difficult circumstances. I understand that a fig leaf normally has three or five lobes—but the Prime Minister has settled on four points, which are in the document that we are considering today. The first is,
“permanent protection for the pound and … guarantees that”,
the UK,
“will never be required to bail out the eurozone”.
The second is,
“commitments from the EU to cut red tape, complete the Single Market and sign new trade deals”.
The third is,
“formal agreement that … the UK is carved out of ‘ever closer union’”,
and the fourth is,
“new powers to tackle the abuse of free movement”,
of EU citizens to protect the UK’s benefit system.
Putting aside for now questions about whether these points, about which there remain concerns, are legally binding, do they amount to the fundamental reform that the PM set out in his Bloomberg speech? Are they in fact new at all or simply restatements of existing norms? With great respect for all the hard work that the PM put in, with the exception of the very thin concessions conceded to allay our immigration concerns, no, they do not and are not.
I was going to detail the essential shortcomings of the deal but it seems that this may not necessary. On this key point, please listen not to me but to no less than the written words of Global Counsel, the consulting arm of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who I note is not in his place. Global Counsel comments that the Prime Minister’s deal,
“includes no new ‘opt outs’, no UK veto on unwanted financial services legislation and no repatriation of powers”.
As they say in court, no further questions.
This brings to my final point, as I am looking at the clock. I wish that the Prime Minister had been a little more candid with the British people about what he had brought back. He could have said, “Look, I haven’t been able to achieve what I set out to, so, in accordance with my promise, I therefore have to recommend that you do not accept it”. Secondly, he could have said, “Look, this is the best deal that I could do in all the very difficult circumstances, and you just have to accept that. Let’s get on with it because of the impossibility”—as the current government document says—“of a prosperous and secure life for the UK outside the EU”. I regret that the Prime Minister would appear to have pulled the wool over the eyes of the British people. They have got used to this in relation to Europe over the years, and I regret that it may come back to bite him in a painful place on 23 June.
In his Bloomberg speech, the Prime Minister stated that,
“the democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin”.
For the reasons that I have tried to set out in these brief remarks, the wafer may be about to break.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I am one of the many millions of people in this country who remain undecided about our future in Europe. I do not claim to be an expert but I have enjoyed the many hours of meetings in your Lordships’ House on European Union committees debating the issues surrounding the attempts to bring 28 different countries together and get them to function as a family of nations.
As a family, we have a home in France and love going there and immersing ourselves in its very different culture, history and traditions. We welcome the fact that France is not like the UK and sees the world very differently from ourselves. That is a very good thing. There are 26 other countries besides ourselves and France that also enrich this diverse community that we call the European Union. Diversity, not uniformity, is the spice of life. We are told by scientists that biodiversity, not equality and fairness, is the very building block of life. Difference is the key to our very existence. The world is not and never has been equal and fair; it is gloriously diverse.
When we embraced this truth, many years ago now, in the middle of an international community in the East End of London in very challenging housing estates, our life and work began to grow, and jobs, skills, businesses and opportunities started to flourish around us in what was formerly a dependency culture. People came together in a shared enterprise. Maybe there is a clue in the micro as to what we must now do in the macro. Unity in real diversity is the name of the game, but can the agreement deliver that reality?
I come to this debate with an interest in business and social justice. I am an entrepreneur and a practical Yorkshireman. For me as an undecided who welcomes this referendum and this debate, the key issues are practical ones, not theoretical or emotional. I have sat on EU committees and listened to senior colleagues from across Europe being emotional about “the project”, with actually too little to say about how in practice you make all this governance machinery work. There needs to be a little more humility on all sides of the argument, and the British public know that. The electorate need practical examples of how the EU will work successfully, not large meaningless numbers and spin—they do not believe it.
The questions I am struggling with as a person who gets the point of deep quality trading relationships across Europe are as follows. First, it is all about delivery. Can the 28 countries, when they come together, actually deliver for those children who may well be drowning in the Mediterranean in June when this vote takes place? It may well be such images, or the lack of them, that define the outcome of this referendum. As a Member of this House I have had the privilege of listening to colleagues examining the numerous organisations that the EU has created to deal with the challenging issues of our time, but are they capable of working together, of putting a practical act together when it really counts, or is the EU a fair-weather organisation? Can it deliver on the euro, the security of our borders, migration and defence? Major General Julian Thompson’s arguments about ending the defence myth are a serious challenge. Are the EU organisations capable of working together, or is it all politics and hot air when it really counts? Have we invested in the relationship-building at a practical level to enable this machinery to work?
Secondly, while party politics is not my bag and I am not a great believer in the proposals of the late Tony Benn and what he had to say, I liked the man, and on the issue of democracy and being able to get rid of our rulers when they mess up he had an important point. If we sign up to yes, how do we get rid of these people if it does not work? I have engaged enough with EU funding systems at a practical level to know that they are a bureaucratic nightmare to deal with. Sometimes in the early days, as a small charity in east London, it felt as if we were carrying Europe for over eight months before it paid its bills. It certainly never seemed to be a learning organisation that was capable of learning from innovation and what was actually happening on the ground in some of our most challenging housing estates in multicultural communities.
Does the EU help us to share our knowledge and skills or is it a hindrance? Is the EU a learning organisation? I am not a purist when it comes to democracy, but there are real democratic questions here. How do we get rid of our rulers in this deal that we are about to do if they cannot actually rule us and deliver for our people and if they are indeed incapable of learning from real-life experience in other communities across Europe? By the way, have our Brexit colleagues any idea how many zeros will be on the lawyers’ fees if we leave? Nice work if you can get it.
Thirdly, are the changes that the Prime Minister says he has won for us real, or will some wily civil servants in Europe water them all down—I have seen this before—and find a hundred reasons why this is all so difficult legally? Yes, they are the right direction of travel. We do not want more Europe, we do not want no Europe, we do want less Europe, but can this be made legal? Is Europe really up for the radical changes some in this House are rightly asking for, or is it an institution incapable of the real reform it so desperately needs for a new generation that is increasingly defined by innovation and entrepreneurship?
Fourthly, I am not persuaded by the large numbers that are bandied about in this debate on all sides by politicians, most of whom have never tried to make any of this work in practice on the ground. They have not themselves tested the systems for real in trade and the rest; they have sat on committees talking about them. I have found in life that most numbers such as these are meaningless in practice. I long for some of our politicians to stop hiding behind numbers and to take us carefully through one or two small and real examples of how this will work in practice for a real SME or business struggling to trade in Europe. Let them show us the systems—top, middle and bottom, warts and all—and explain how they will change in practice to facilitate more trade and interaction. Let us get into these details.
The British public long to see real debate with real players on the ground. What will it be like for SMEs in practice if these changes happen? Will anything change in the real world? Come on politicians and media: give the British people the practical evidence—show us the micro. I have run out of time, but I long to hear practical examples of what all this means. We have four months; let us have the examples.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate (UKIP)
My Lords, the Government’s scare stories are an attempt to justify their failure to achieve any real reform of the EU. If leaving is going to be such an unmitigated disaster, why on earth did they run the risk that the UK would vote to leave?
Various options if or when we withdraw have been mentioned. Let us look at Norway as an example. A recent statement by a senior Norwegian Minister said that, in the run-up to the referendum in 1994, the yes campaign warned of recession and unemployment if Norway stayed outside the EU. More than 20 years later, Norway is trading more than ever with EU countries and with the rest of the world. Unemployment in Norway is at a much lower level than in most EU countries. As it is outside the common agricultural policy, Norway is free to have an agricultural policy in accordance with local needs. It is outside the common fisheries policy. It is not part of the euro, so monetary policy is set in Norway for Norway. It is not part of the EU’s attempt to co-ordinate tax, so Norway is free to set taxes and duties as it wishes.
Some people say that Norway is forced to accept all EU regulations. In fact, despite the EEA agreement, most EU regulations do not apply to Norway. Between 2000 and 2013, Norway adopted just over 4,700 directives and regulations through the agreement. In the same period, the EU adopted 52,183 pieces of legislation. Of all EU legislation, only 9% was adopted into the EEA agreement. Surely, if we went the Norwegian route, which I am not advocating, we could do much better, as we are the fifth largest economy in the world. Even Liechtenstein—an EEA and EFTA state—has an exemption from free movement.
Let us look at the scares about our exports. To which European country do we export the most? It is Germany, with which we have a huge trade deficit. The UK is the only EU member state that sells more outside the EU than to other members. Due to the conflicting demands of 28 members, the EU has still not concluded a trade deal with the United States. How much easier it would be for the UK to do it on its own. After all, Peru and Australia have such deals. Staying in the EU is the biggest risk of all. Its share of world GDP is falling year by year, from 30% in 1980 to 16% now, and by 2020 estimates are it will be smaller than that of NAFTA and the Commonwealth.
It is a fallacy to believe that our relationship with Brussels will remain the same if we vote to stay. If that happens, the EU will regard it as the go-ahead to impose even more integration; our special status will be treated with the normal contempt. The remorseless process of enlargement will soon see membership extended to Turkey and Bosnia with their Muslim population of more than 80 million.
Can we trust the EU? In 2011, Mr Cameron secured in the clearest possible language a written guarantee that the UK would not be required to bail out the euro. He has got it again. He made that opt-out a plank of his general election campaign, yet one month later he was obliged to pledge £850 million to bail out Greece. Three months after that, he was obliged to pay the £1.7 billion “prosperity surcharge” that he first described as completely unacceptable. Given this record, how can we trust any assurance from Brussels?
If we were not a member, would we join? Perhaps we share the views of the Business Secretary, Mr Javid, an in campaigner. He said:
“It’s clear now that the United Kingdom should never have joined the European Union. In many ways, it’s a failing project, an overblown bureaucracy in need of wide-ranging and urgent reform”.
If that is the voice of the in campaign, we do not need an out campaign at all. The real scare story is staying in an unreformed EU with still no control of our borders and subject to bureaucrats we cannot vote out and who have made it clear they do not care what we think. There are 195 sovereign nations in the world and 167 manage without being members of the EU. Withdrawal from the EU is the safe option. Our continued membership is a further leap into the economic chaos created by the euro and uncontrolled migration.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I have found it very interesting sitting through this debate. I have heard some voices from the backwoods I have never heard before. I have had the strange experience of my noble friends Lord Radice and Lord Mandelson asking me to support the Prime Minister. I do support the Prime Minister in one sense: I am going to urge people to vote to remain.
However, David Cameron has made an awful mess of referenda. He has shown no skill, no judgment, and no ability to deal with them. Now we are ending up with a lame duck Prime Minister—because that is what he is—leading us into an unnecessary referendum on Europe. Many of us on this side argued that it was unnecessary. Referenda have not, until recently, been part of our British constitution. There were no major changes in treaties that required us to have a referendum. Above all, there was no demand from the public for a referendum. It was a device to paper over divisions in the Tory party. It has not worked very well on that, has it? We now have the position where the Prime Minister’s great friends on the other side of the argument are rubbishing him, and the Tory party is riven more than ever before.
We have already seen the Prime Minister’s incompetence on referenda in Scotland. He conceded to the nationalists in maladroit negotiations on the timing of the referendum. The SNP chose it to suit itself. The wording of the question made sure that the SNP was on the yes side and could accuse those of us who wanted to save the union as being negative. He conceded on all other aspects including the franchise. It was a miracle that the no campaign triumphed in that referendum and we saved the union. Much of the credit goes to my noble friend Lord Darling rather than to the Prime Minister, who turned victory in that referendum into defeat with his statement in the morning on English votes for English laws. As a result, the SNP surged to victory in the general election, as far as Scotland was concerned.
Once again, it is left to the rest of us to save the Union—this time, it is the European Union. I think the European Union is a real-life miracle. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and others have said, a continent riven by two world wars in the first half of the 20th century has had no major conflict for 70 years. We have 28 countries with 25 languages, different cultures, different histories, working together united in a common endeavour—that is a true-life miracle.
I have had the pleasure and privilege of travelling the world. The European Union is the envy of countries in other regions. They would like to copy it—to copy the peace and prosperity. I have seen it in central America, the Caribbean and the Far East. The UKIP people can laugh, but they are the cynics in this. I have seen people around the world who recognise the triumph of the European Union.
It is true, as others have said, that it is not perfect. However, it is those of us who treasure the ideal of the European Union who are the first to recognise this and want it to change. Take the criticism about the lack of democracy. Was not it strange when we heard the noble Lord, Lord Howard, attacking democracy from this, the only non-elected legislative Chamber in the European Union, something that we on this side want to change so that we can have a senate of the nations and regions? It really was ridiculous to hear that, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, joined me in that criticism. Take sovereignty. It is not about removing sovereignty but sharing sovereignty. When we see the power held by the multinationals, the banks and other large institutions, it is clear that the only way we can deal with them on behalf of the people we represent—or at least those in the other Chamber represent—is by working together through multinational organisations such as the European Union. Pooling sovereignty gives us more power. Some people say that we have lost identity by being part of the European Union. But the French are no less French and the Italians are no less Italian by being part of the European Union. The paradox is that the United Kingdom, which to some extent has never had a proper identity as a United Kingdom, is developing that within the European Union because we see ourselves as an important part of that.
One of the key issues in this debate and in the referendum is this: what is the alternative? The leave side has failed and will continue to fail to define any alternative. We have heard Norway mentioned. On Monday, I had the pleasure of being at a seminar with a Member of the Norwegian Parliament, who urged me against trying to follow them because, as others have said, Norway has to take the decisions of the European Union without the power to change them.
Labour is united in this campaign. The Tories are hopelessly divided. The members of the SNP are pretending that they want to stay but praying that England votes no and Scotland votes yes so that another referendum for independence in Scotland is triggered—just as Sturgeon confided in the French ambassador that she wanted Cameron to continue as Prime Minister; unfortunately for her, that leaked out.
The European Union has been good for working people, for the environment—as my noble friend Lady Young said—for health and safety, for jobs and for working conditions. Our vision is of a socialist Europe with socialist and social democratic Governments around the continent. I do not expect those on the other side to support that, but I know they have their own vision of Europe. However, as we face 16 long weeks of campaigning, I hope that all of us on the stay side will emphasise the positive vision of peace and prosperity that we in this Chamber have seen for the past 50, 60 and 70 years. We should not deny that to our children and our grandchildren.
Lord Selsdon (Con)
My Lords, I suffer from a great disadvantage in that during the last referendum I was secretary and treasurer of the Conservative Group for Europe, where everyone was going to provide a large amount of money. But I found at the end of the day—on the coldest day of all, driving from Sheffield in an open-top car, frozen stiff—that I was presented with a rather large bill. I did not know what to do, and then someone who would become one of my noble friends said, “My dear chap, give a dinner party and tell the truth”. So, with a little bit of influence from the officials, we managed to have the first dinner in the banqueting hall with a note arranged by others to say, “Please each of you pay enough money to let the poor lad off his debt”.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, reminded me that I have never understood who Confucius was, and I have been very confused by much of what I have seen— I have read most of the data and most of the briefs. However, I am told that there will be no claim for full benefits for up to four years for immigrants, and I think that that is rather nice. I am told also that 44% of all UK exports go to the EU now—I would query that, but it is a significant figure; that 50% of all foreign investment in the UK comes from the EU; and that £20 billion of trade deals are under way for the UK, including those with the US. This is all really rather encouraging.
The debate today is not really about trade but is perhaps a matter of organisation. I was always brought up to believe that investment follows trade. We have an extremely good trading position at the moment: we have surpluses on manufacturers, for some of them for the first time, and we do not have a balance of payment problem. The economy is doing extremely well. However, having read that 44% of all UK exports go to the EU and 50% of all foreign investment comes from the EU, I was concerned, because I was not sure how and where those figures are. We have no economic problems, but we have certain emotional problems.
I have no intention of speaking for any longer, because I have spoken already on this. However, I congratulate the Government on what they have done. If it is presented in the right way, we can go off for a period of security. I thank the Minister very much for what she did the last time; it was a very difficult time and I should like to have raised a lot of other issues. However, I am content with what I have seen and read, and I wish the Government all success.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, it was primarily the changed attitude to Europe that caused me to leave the Conservative Party in 1997. In my resignation letter to my then association chairman, I wrote:
“The Conservative’s new Eurosceptic policy certainly puts clear water between itself and the opposition—it is just that I feel happier on the other shore! It is not I who have changed my beliefs and my approach—it is the Conservative Party that has changed, I believe for the worse”.
Many of those Eurosceptic Tories are still around today. Nothing negotiated by the Prime Minister would have satisfied them. They have never spoken favourably about Europe, opposing anything and everything European over the years. Thankfully, the coming referendum has a much broader electorate than just the Conservative Party, which is patently split down the middle.
I am delighted that our young people are substantially in favour of remaining in Europe. Indeed, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I would give those under 30 two votes each because it is their future that we are talking about—the octogenarians and septuagenarians like me have had our future.
I believe that the arguments for staying in are overwhelming and, indeed, overwhelmingly supported —by international statesmen; by virtually all our senior politicians across the political divide, past and present; by virtually all our former military chiefs; by the vast majority of our major trading companies; by the 80% of the Engineering Employers Federation who, in conference, recently voted in favour of remaining; by the vast majority in the City; by nearly all our trade unions; almost certainly by the National Farmers’ Union; by those engaged in overseas aid; by most university vice-chancellors; and by the tourist industry, with 80% of UKinbound voting to remain.
Of course, if we pulled out, Europe would still want to trade with us, but as we would have so publicly snubbed Europe, it would not make is easy for us. Indeed, why should it? It would adopt, I suggest, a very tough approach, not least because it would want to discourage any other country from following Britain in making a UDI and breaking away. A vote for Brexit would be a vote for the certain devaluation of the pound. Goldman Sachs, HSBC and UBS have all forecast that the devaluation of the pound could be up to 20%. It would be a vote for economic uncertainty and upheaval at a time when the world economy is fragile. It would unquestionably weaken military co-operation, could put our energy supplies at risk, and would most certainly cause some businesses to part-relocate or invest elsewhere.
Today we face a range of global problems—tragically, so many refugees, terrorism, human trafficking, drugs and third-world poverty. It is manifestly obvious that these are best tackled internationally and in co-operation with others. To pull up the drawbridge, to retreat behind national walls, swathing ourselves in the union jack and droning on about sovereignty, would be a disaster for this country and for Europe. In short, we would be taking the “Great” out of Great Britain.
I have faith in the good sense of our people. I believe that on 23 June they will vote decisively to stay in, and that the overall majority will be much greater than any today imagine.
Lord Spicer (Con)
I shall be very brief, not because I cannot think of anything to say, but because others have said most of it before me. I want to begin by asking what is likely to determine the outcome of the referendum. I do not think it will be the mechanical efficiency of the campaigns and so on; it will be the self-churning groundswell of public mood. I sense that that groundswell is beginning to work towards coming out of the EU because people are increasingly weary of the bossiness of a distant Government over the choice of which they, the people, had little say.
I realise that Britain joined the common market for economic reasons and was prepared to pay a political price for that. For Germany it was the other way round; it joined for political reasons and was prepared to pay an economic price. One accepts that the problem arises for quite the opposite reason from that which people have been saying in this debate. It is clear that the economic case is on a sharp decline. Britain is in there, but we are in a rather sluggish market, rather a miserable market in many ways. Above all, we are a member of an institution that cannot even negotiate modern trade agreements. That is rather like not being able to organise a party in a brewery.
It is quite incredible that we do not yet have a modern trading treaty with Japan, the United States or China. In my view, that can be explained by the fact that we are dealing through a protectionist organisation. If we had done it ourselves, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said, and we had negotiated directly as a country, we would have achieved modern trading agreements with those areas. That is because we believe in free trade; we invented free trade. The EU is a protectionist organisation. It does not believe in free trade so it is constantly on the back foot when it is negotiating.
It has been said today that Britain could not negotiate its own treaties. That is the exact reverse of the truth. I am approached sometimes as the person who was the pain in the neck during the passage of the Maastricht Bill and asked whether I was wasting my time and, more important, everyone else’s time. I think that we held the forth, kept the door open for progress towards this referendum. It will now be up to the people to decide. I know which way I will vote; it is fairly obvious which way I will vote. That is democracy, and that is the really good thing about what we are discussing.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I rise to give a subjective view—an apolitical view—from the Cross Benches and, I hope, a slightly more emotionally continent view than some we have heard this afternoon.
I am a post-war baby boomer. I remember growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, in a slightly grey, post-imperial world. It was a period of industrial and political decline. I can remember the failure of the country to harness what Harold Wilson called the white heat of the technological revolution. It seemed to pass us by rather convincingly as our cars rusted and our aerospace industry became insolvent. But there were some good things. I remember some fantastic music, and swinging London had its upside. So I thought, “What can I do to help this country in its state of decline?”. I did the most helpful thing I could think of and emigrated. From 1971 to 1978 I had an interesting life in the city of Vancouver in Canada. I think I am one-32nd part Cree Indian, so it seemed a natural place to go. I missed a lot of fun: I missed the oil crash in Europe; I missed our entry into the EU; I missed the three-day week and candles left, right and centre; I missed the referendum; I missed the International Monetary Fund rescue. All in all, it was great timing.
In 1981, I made the second wisest decision of my life. The first was marrying Lady Russell, who is an extremely beautiful southern Italian academic. The second was going to a school in France known as l’Institut Europeen d’Administration des Affaires—apologies to Hansard—better known as INSEAD, where one of my colleagues was the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. At that time, it was a profoundly eccentric thing to do. The idea that one would actually study business instead of learning it by making a series of mistakes and probably losing rather a lot of money along the way, and the fact that one would do it in France and partly in French, was not fully comprehensible to many people. What did I learn there? I learned to look at the world through a global lens, as a joined-up entity. I had the extraordinary experience of standing in a semi-circle of about 18 different nationalities watching the Falkland conflict unfold, trying to explain to my non-British colleagues that this was not something straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan but was actually happening in front of our eyes. I can remember the outbreak of the hostilities in Lebanon, and I can remember watching and witnessing Israeli colleagues cutting short their stay at INSEAD to go back because they were called up, and Lebanese colleagues doing the same. So I left that school with a visceral sense of the interconnectivity of the world we live in.
I have since spent 30 years working as a head hunter. We work for a wide range of public and private companies in every single major economy in the world. I can tell you, my Lords, that the UK’s role as a leading member of the EU is fundamental to the way in which the rest of the world values our contribution. Is the EU perfect? In no way. But I would like to share four reflections with your Lordships and ask you to think about them.
First, have all the influential voices, most of whom are job and wealth creators, who have grave concerns about our leaving the EU, all been misled and misunderstood? Secondly, why is it that so many of Brexit’s most prominent political advocates in both Houses of Parliament appear to have had relatively little commercial experience but feel qualified to opine on issues with huge economic consequences for all of us? Thirdly, as I reflect on those leading political proponents of Brexit, does anyone share my unease at the prospect of being governed by individuals several of whom appear to still be unduly influenced by their nannies from early on in their life and still refer to them occasionally in public discourse? Fourthly, as one or two noble Lords have said, what is completely absent in this Chamber is the voice of the future—the 18 to 30 year-olds who will have a vote in June. They are the people who will be living with the consequences of the decision we take, not ourselves.
For those of you who have not seen or heard it, I commend the remarkable speech made in another place by Nicholas Soames. It said all there is to be said about why the EU was created. As I think you can guess, apolitical I may be, but I think that to leave the European Union would be a huge wasted opportunity.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow that refreshing speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, because at these times in debates one is reminded of the Peer who said, “Everything has been said but not everyone has yet said it”. We are at that stage.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I want to bring a personal perspective to the debate. I remember the 1975 referendum when I was a relatively new Member of Parliament. What I enjoyed about that most of all was campaigning in my own constituency alongside Labour colleagues. We had the good fortune to have Sir Geoffrey de Freitas and Professor David Marquand to come and stay with us and we went out and campaigned with a degree of enthusiasm and vigour. What has happened since then?
My noble friend Lord Howard made a notable and compelling speech and referred to the EU as flawed and failing. When I go to my weekly meetings of the Sub-Committee on Home Affairs of our European Union Select Committee and I sometimes see the piles of papers, read the jargon and the confusing abbreviations, I have some sympathy with my noble friend. Yet when I do that I think of Dr Johnson, one of the greatest of Englishmen, who, observing a dog dancing on its hind legs said, “The wonder is not that it is doing it badly but that it is doing it at all”.
Over the past 40 years or more since we have been a member of the European Union, remarkable things have happened and I want to share with your Lordships two brief memories. In 1972, as chairman of the Campaign for Soviet Jewry, I went to help receive a group of people who had been given their exit visas from Moscow at a reception centre in an old castle just outside Vienna. There I met a particularly beautiful girl who spoke the most faultless English. When I said to her, “You must have passed out with the best marks possible”, she laughed and said, “Yes—until the day after my parents got their exit visas. Then I was called in by the rector of the university and told I had failed everything”.
Fast forward 30 years. In 2004 I had the good fortune to take a party from the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group to the Baltic States to that very university in Tartu in Estonia where the girl had virtually been expelled. There we were greeted by the rector, who said how proud he was that Estonia and the other Baltic states were now members of NATO and the European Union. Things like that resonate with me.
When at my home in the lovely city of Lincoln I open my shutters in the morning and look at one of the most glorious buildings in Europe, I am reminded of once replying, when I was asked who I was, “My identity is English”—even though my family come from Scotland—“my nationality is British and my civilisation is European”. Now is not the time, for all its manifest imperfections, for us to turn our backs. As we enter a difficult period in world affairs which will increasingly be dominated by the great power blocs, is this really the time to cut ourselves off from the continent of which we are historically and geographically a part?
I have one reason above all others why I will vote to remain in. The reason is north of the border. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talked about the referendum in Scotland. We kept the United Kingdom. Mistakes were made and there was a lurch from complacency to panic. Speeches were made which perhaps should not have been made. We saw some of the consequences when we debated the Scotland Bill in this Chamber two nights ago. However, we are still a United Kingdom. If the vote went to come out there is a real chance—I put it no higher—that within five years not only would we be outside the European Union but the United Kingdom could come to an end.
That has not been mentioned in this debate up to now—so not everything has been said—but every right-thinking citizen of the United Kingdom should contemplate it very carefully before voting no on 23 June. In voting no, not only would we be turning our backs on the European Union in its hour of greatest need when we have a real contribution to make, but we would also, quite possibly, be turning our backs on the greatest and most successful union of nations that has ever occurred.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that Britain and Ireland remaining in the EU is very important to peace in Ireland, north and south. However, I should like to go back 70 years when Sir Winston Churchill said in Brussels:
“I see no reason why, under the guardianship of a world organization, there should not arise the United States of Europe, which will unify this Continent”.
At Fulton, Missouri, after naming the Iron Curtain, he said:
“The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast”.
In Zurich in September 1946 he said:
“If we are to form the United States of Europe … we must begin now”.
In May 1947 at the Albert Hall, he spoke of our own role. He said:
“Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family”.
In August 1949 at Strasbourg, he continued:
“There is no reason not to succeed in establishing the structure of this United Europe, whose moral concepts will reap the respect and recognition of humanity”.
Two days later, Churchill emphasised the moral aspects of the Council of Europe and its Assembly.
We neglect at our peril the words of one who led us to victory in 1945. From then on, he kept returning to the theme of European unity. He sensed the need to replace the old empires of Prussia, Austria and Ottoman Turkey, which collapsed in 1918, with something better. He saw that only by united strength could the Soviet empire be resisted, to the point of its collapse.
I am delighted that Sir Winston kept on stressing that Europe is a moral idea to which Britain can make a special contribution. Like him, I want to see a moral Europe—one that protects all its citizens and residents through the rule of law. I desire a Europe that can welcome and resettle a huge variety of refugees—one that rejects the trafficking and slavery of newcomers.
The rebuilding in Bosnia of the famous bridge of Mostar and the Ferhadija mosque in Banja Luka are symbols of what can be done. The European movement itself was inspired by the urgent need for reconciliation through the ending of old enmities. This was an idea that could fire people’s moral imagination. Even today, in far more prosperous times, we can surely use our strengths on behalf of the poorest and most disadvantaged.
The Eurosceptics, of whom there are many, have rightly exposed the bureaucracy, lethargy, waste and poor accounting of the EU structures. These, of course, have to be overcome, and so does the democratic deficit. They are reasons for reform, but not for a bad-tempered Britain to turn its back on friends and allies. We should recall that we went to war for the sake of Belgium, Serbia, Poland and much more recently, of Bosnia and Kosovo. We are the natural ally of smaller countries. That was why my grandfather and great-uncle were killed in action in 1916 and 1917. It was also why I appealed for the Baltic states that have been mentioned at the very moment when Saddam Hussein was invading Kuwait.
Above all, we should recall the great-hearted vision of Churchill. That is why we should strive for devolved decision-making at the lowest reasonable level. That is why we should vote for a moral, co-operating and renewed Europe.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I recall sitting in this House listening to the debates on the referendum in 1975 and being influenced by their very high quality. We have had some very high-quality speeches today, but I have not been influenced to the same extent yet as I was in 1975. In 1975, there was the danger of isolation of the UK. That was one of the features that came through in the debate.
We are reassured today by the out campaign: “Don’t worry, we are the fifth-largest economy in the world. It doesn’t matter if we get out”. In 1975, we were the sixth-largest economy by GDP so I see no difference. I have also been a Minister in Brussels and been prevented from doing what we wanted to do because of the Treaty of Rome and all the frustrations that came with that. I guess that I am a Eurosceptic by nature. I believe that the architecture of the EU is far from perfect.
However, I have concerns on what the Government have proposed. The biggest concern is between the euro and the non-euro countries. There will be a big clash between the pound and the euro in due course. I cannot make up my mind whether we are better off in Europe trying to help to solve that or better off outside. With regard to businesses, I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, was the best we have heard today. I was very influenced by that speech. But business has changed—we export services; we export digital equipment and knowledge. That is a very different type of export from what we had in 1975. If we are not within Europe, I fear that those great exports will be the ones that suffer. Let us not forget that the EU will require third-party equivalence for any trade deals that they do with this, as it currently does with any other country. It will take far longer than the out campaign has indicated to get any sort of deal with the countries in the EU.
On financial reforms, I disagree very much with what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said. For four years I have been on the European Sub-Committee on Finance, scrutinising the European laws. All the evidence shows that what has been put forward by the EU would have been put forward by our Treasury in any case. It was not an EU matter but a global matter. Just to help my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I can say: do not believe too much in our civil servants. If he reads the report on Defra’s performance with agricultural payments and he remembers all the gold-plating that our civil servants have done to make us more uncompetitive, then perhaps being in Europe is not quite so bad.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, mentioned research. That was one of the subjects that I wanted to talk about, too, but there is no need to now that he has mentioned it. I am concerned that we will lose a lot in the research world if we are not part of Europe and we will not have that freedom and the benefit that we get from linking up with European universities and business. After 40 years of being in the membership of a club there are bound to be hidden benefits that will not come to light until a decision is made to leave. I mention the European health insurance scheme as one of the many benefits that people in this country will lose should we come out.
I turn to the other speech that really impressed me, which was that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. The West is not a fashionable concept at the moment. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 10 years ago. To my mind, an effective EU is a vital component of a secure EU and a strong West. We have not banged the drum for some of the achievements of the EU in the past 10 years—on the environment, Burma, Somalian pirates and in Iran. Perhaps that is something that we are not good at—beating the drum. If we vote to come out, the biggest party will not be in the houses of those who lead the out campaign; they will be in Moscow and Beijing. Those are countries that believe they would like to be big because if they are big they can bully their neighbours and make their neighbours’ lives much more uncomfortable. We are lucky; we do not have a border with the great bear with its sharp claws, but Europe does. I was hugely influenced on that finance Sub-Committee when we asked the Lithuanian Minister the benefit of joining the euro. His reply was: defence.
Some of the out campaign speeches have done nothing but supported what Scotland tried to achieve last year, which was independence. They said: “Give us our power back. We want to be independent, away from being controlled by overseas”. That is what some of the Scots wanted. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, suggested letting the under-30 year-olds have two votes. If the Scottish under-30s had had two votes there would be a separate Scotland now.
I shall end with a quotation that I used in my maiden speech by that great bard Burns:
“O, wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us”.
How would European partners see us? We have preferential terms now; we will have even more preferential terms if what the Government propose is agreed.
If the out campaign succeeds, I am not at all certain that there will be an EU. I would go further than my noble friend Lord Cormack—he said that there would not be a UK. I do not think there will be an EU as we know it now. In that context let me close by reminding your Lordships that the French voted twice against us joining the EU before we did.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl. We sit together on the same Sub-Committee, and I endorse everything he said about financial regulation.
It has been a most extraordinary debate. We have had three very original, very lucid, very remarkable speeches from a personal point of view on the subject: one by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling; another by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool; and the third by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I found those particularly inspiring. However, we also had a complete abdication in the debate from those advocating our leaving the European Union. I always believed that the normal rule for rational human discourse was that, if someone had a proposal to make a change, it was for him to argue the case to explain why the change would represent an improvement and how the benefits could be secured. We have heard absolutely none of that.
Let me get across some of the major activities that we have in common with our partners in the European Union, which we would no longer have if we left. We played a major part in the political co-operation in common foreign policy activity, which has been very useful for world peace. The European Union has been part of the quartet in the Middle East: it played a major role with the United States in achieving accommodation with Iran, which is very important, and in achieving the Minsk agreement with Mr Putin. I put this question to the eurosceptics, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont: why is it that we would be better off in performing that role—whether for world peace, or in our own interests—if we no longer sat in the Council of Ministers and were no longer a party to the discussion or to the processes of policy formation and delivery? Similarly, we in the European Union have done a great deal to help the development of emerging countries, both through trade agreements—Cotonou and post-Cotonou—and through the largest aid programme in the world. If the eurosceptics win this referendum, is it their intention that we pull out of that activity altogether? Presumably we cannot be part of a trade agreement, Cotonou or otherwise, if we are no longer part of the European Union. Would we cease to support the projects that are now being supported there, or would we perhaps decide, all on our own, to replicate the structures of project evaluation and supervision and thereby spend a lot of money, which could have been spent for the benefit of the countries we are trying to help? Is that a sensible thing to do—is that in the national interest?
On the environment, we had great success in the Paris conference, and the EU has been shown to be a major force in this field. If the eurosceptics win the referendum, do they intend to abandon our present policy on the environment altogether? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, wants to do that. If they do not want to abandon it, what sort of role do they see for our country? The people in this country are entitled to ask that question. If we are still going to support, from outside, the European Union and its policy initiatives in this field, why would it be an advantage to us to do it from outside? Why would it be an advantage not to be in the Council of Ministers, nor to be discussing these matters with the Commission and developing a coherent and common position?
I turn to the very important issue of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, Europol, the common arrest warrant and so on, which are matters of life and death. We know that the eurosceptics hate those measures. They fought like cats against them, in this House and the other place, and never wanted to accept them in the first place. What are they going to do? That is one area where the man who I think wishes to be leader of the out campaign, Boris Johnson, has actually given an answer, in yesterday’s Telegraph. He says that he is going to form a series of bilateral intergovernmental agreements. The idea of having 28 separate bilateral agreements is obviously absurd; I will not waste the time of the House by explaining why, because everyone can see that. It shows that Mr Johnson and his colleagues have not even begun to think this through. What is required is an integrated structure of communication and response systems of information and intelligence- gathering and distribution. It has to be a permanent or long-term structure in which people are trained and which can be exercised if it is going to be of any use when a crisis suddenly arises. In this field, I do not think that there is any understanding of the national interest among the eurosceptic spokesmen, either in this debate or by Mr Johnson in his famous article yesterday.
Let me turn to the economic issues, which noble Lords have rightly discussed, although in an extraordinary way. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, actually said earlier that we can get the same benefits through the World Trade Organisation that we can get through the 45—he did not say that, but I know that there are 45—trade agreements that the EU has with other markets around the world. That is completely wrong; it is simply factually incorrect. I do not know how such a distinguished man, who has been a Chancellor of the Exchequer, can make such an elementary error. The WTO is not a substitute for those agreements and, if it was, it would probably take seven or eight years to negotiate such agreements. Again, there was a sense of complete unreality on the part of the eurosceptic spokesmen.
The eurosceptics owe us an answer on our relationship with the single market—which we all know is so important for the employment of millions of people—future investment flows and the location of business decisions. Are they going for the Swiss model, or the Norwegian model, or some model of their imagination? What effort have they made to see how viable that model might be? They owe it to the British people not to lead them into the dark or on to treacherous ground and abandon them when it is too late and the decision has been taken. We need to know now what the alternative plan is and we have not had a single whisper about what it might consist of.
Obviously, this is a very important matter; anybody who thought that it was not should at least pay a little attention to the fact that all our major trade partners, in the EU and outside it—in fact, all the major decision-takers in the world, with one important exception—have urged us publicly to stay in the European Union and pointed out the damage we would do to ourselves and to others if we left. That is true of Shinzo Abe, Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, Barack Obama and Christine Lagarde. Are we simply going to ignore all that advice? If we are going to take this matter seriously, we need to have a serious debate in which the British public can focus on factual, material and genuine arguments and not on just a lot of emotionalism. In this debate the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, talked about colonialism, but that is just an emotive term, bearing no relationship whatever to reality. Quite extraordinary things have been said. Every day the Daily Mail publishes pictures of refugees, asylum seekers or foreigners generally, making them look as sinister as possible, and it will of course go on doing that until June. However, that is not the way to take a very important decision, which is going to affect the lives of ourselves and many future generations in this country.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, I reflect that although emotionalism can be a bit of a trap, when people vote on 23 June a great many of them will in fact be voting for emotional and not necessarily rational reasons. Let me follow the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and go back to Churchill in Strasbourg in 1949. I was fortunate enough to be there when he addressed the Council of Europe in French. The second half of his speech was the one into which he really threw himself: it was about tyranny, the knock on the door in the middle of the night, and war. It was very powerful. He was not anywhere near so certain about how the institutions that would fulfil his ideas would be created or how they would develop.
I suppose that that is what we are considering today: how has this project worked out so far? What happened to us was that we joined a club of six, hesitantly and rather late. We did not have control over who were the members of the club. Quite often, people in clubs do have such control, but geography and other considerations meant that we did not. Right from the beginning, we thought that this would be an uncomfortable club. There were good reasons for that: our attachment to common law, which is very different from the law that Napoleon put in place; our unwritten constitution; our empiricism—we are rather hesitant about any theory; and our dislike of bureaucratic control. This afternoon noble Lords have referred to the latter quite often, and I agree that Whitehall is not necessarily much of an improvement on Brussels. Of course, Brussels is informed with remnants of 19th century German socialist thinking, which is very different from how we have arrived at where we are. The documents that come out of Brussels are written in an English that generates mistrust in the normal British reader. It would be better if we had more people working in Brussels than we do today.
The arguments about staying or leaving now encompass a great deal about economics—jobs and prosperity. I am pretty sceptical about all that. It does not seem that the reason we have real incomes of four times what they were before the Second World War has much to do with politics and politicians. It seems to me much more to do with the advance of science and technology. Therefore, I again do not see much distinction between how Brussels would handle our economic future and how Whitehall would handle it. I am pretty sceptical about both. For example, who predicted fracking and the technology of horizontal drilling, which enabled that industry to be developed? Indeed, who predicted that the price of oil would fall from $115 per barrel to $33 per barrel? I do not think there were very many people who knew about that.
I suppose that it is always right to be quite sceptical, whether it is scepticism about the European Union or a more general scepticism about the way we deal with the muddle of this life. I suppose that if integration of the eurozone entangled us in some definitive way we would have to leave, but I do not see that there is an argument for leaving now. There is too much at stake, such as the troubles in the Middle East. Let us not forget that at the fall of the Ottoman Empire it was the French and the English who resolved the borders that were put in place. There is also Libya and Mr Putin. Whither the United States of America? I am being sceptical again; I am not too keen on Mrs Clinton and I am certainly very unkeen on Mr Trump. Then there are the economic uncertainties in Asia and in China. Finally, there is the huge migration into Europe. The European Union is having to react to all this.
The idea that the European Union has to change is widely in the air. It has only just started to be debated seriously. We need to be there to assist as it continues, as I believe it will. Being uncomfortable does not need to be a permanent condition.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)
My Lords, I was going to make a long speech about my nanny, but the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has discouraged me from doing that. I do not want to go over the outcome of the Prime Minister’s negotiations in detail, but it is worth pointing out that, after three days of hard slog, all-night meetings, working lunches, working suppers, posturing photo opportunities and communiques, the result was the status quo—nothing much has changed.
I suppose that that might be considered slightly unfair. In fact, the Prime Minister has already said that the UK can now veto the Commission’s proposals, so long as 15 other member states raise the red card as well. I call that a pretty long shot, I must say. We will be allowed to pay EU immigrants more benefits the longer they stay in this country. I suppose that that is another win, is it? The EU will agree to become more competitive—that must have been a very tough one to argue. I can just imagine the other 27 representatives of member states saying, “No, we want to be less competitive”, but I suppose that after eight hours of hard bargaining the Prime Minister got his way and won that one. He also said that sterling is a separate currency to the euro—how much negotiation did that take, I wonder?—and that London is the capital of the United Kingdom. That was not in the final communique, but it was about the sort of achievement we got.
So after all the promises—such as the Bloomberg debate, which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, mentioned, where the Prime Minister set out his vision for a fundamentally reformed, outward-looking EU with powers flowing back to member states, or his speech to the Conservative Party conference in 2014, when he promised to cut immigration, repeal the Human Rights Act and repatriate powers from Brussels—all the travel, the grim hours of all-night negotiation and all the English breakfasts, the PM has come back with not one power returned, and not one line in the treaty altered. The PM is like a conjuror who has gone to the party with his hat but has forgotten the rabbit. He has not even produced the most myxomatosed rabbit out of his hat.
We will still have to pay £20 billion a year to the EU institution—a good name for it. It is an institution whose accounts have failed its own audit for the last 20 years. We will still be unable to control our own borders. We will not have repatriated a single power back to the UK Parliament after those negotiations. Our laws will still be proposed and enforced by the unelected Commission in Brussels and voted through by the Council of Ministers, where we have a very weak voice indeed and where we are, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, routinely outvoted.
The Prime Minister’s reforms have been routinely rather rubbished, I am afraid—quite rightly—so they have had to fall back on the scare tactics. I will not go into them; we have heard a lot of them tonight from our Europhile friends. Their weakness is that they said exactly the same thing about the euro—that we would be marginalised and excluded from the top table, and no one would trade with us if we did not join. Of course, the reverse is entirely the case. We have created more jobs in the last three years than the whole of the eurozone put together. Far from being marginalised, we trade all over the world very successfully. The Europhiles who told us to go into the euro were wrong then and they are wrong now when they tell us we will be lost if we do not stay in the EU.
It is very depressing to hear these forecasts of doom about if we leave. Do the Europhiles really believe that Britain would be unable to govern itself outside the EU? We are, after all—as we heard before—the fifth-largest economy in the world. London is the world’s financial centre. We have four of the world’s top 10 universities. English is the world’s default language. We have a permanent seat on the United Nations council and we have the fourth-largest Armed Forces in the world. Britain is the eurozone’s biggest single market—bigger than the USA. We are Germany’s biggest single market—bigger than the USA. Is it really so difficult to imagine us living outside the EU? I do not think that it is. I remind the House—I think someone else said this—that there are 195 nations in the United Nations; 168 of them get by very well without being members of the EU. So can we.
I suppose that this debate is to celebrate Mr Cameron’s achievement in Brussels, entitled The Best of Both Worlds. No: it is the worst of both worlds, because we have gained nothing and remain subservient to the EU. It is time to leave—time to run our own country again.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, I have to make a confession, which is that I quite mistakenly voted to stay in the EU in 1975. At that time we were the fourth-richest country in the EU—Germany, France and Italy had bigger GDPs than we had. It is quite interesting that we are now the second-richest country in the EU. There was a great sense of optimism on my part when we joined. I thought that we were such a poverty-stricken country—we were not going anywhere and we seemed to be riddled with problems—and we were joining this rich man’s club. Now those roles are reversed: we are the rich ones and it is the EU that faces very serious problems. It is rather interesting that there is no optimism in the message from those who say we should remain in the EU. They merely have a Project Fear, saying that it will be the end of the world if we pull out.
I was rather interested, as my noble friend Lord Stevens was, by my right honourable friend Sajid Javid’s remark that if we had been outside the EU today he would not have joined. We have to think about that. Are all these people who express such enthusiasm for the EU really saying that if we were outside the EU today we would join it? If we search our inner selves, many of us who might be in favour of staying in would not be keen to join today. That is certainly a significant factor in this whole debate. Let us face it: the EU is not thriving. My noble friend Lord Hague some time ago described the role of the UK in the EU as like being trapped in a burning house with no exits. Things have moved on since then. The heat of the fire has now gone up considerably and the whole building is at great risk of collapsing, but there is another factor: the possibility of an exit.
I want to address something that has been raised an awful lot this evening: what is the vision of those of us who want to pull out? We must be clear about the significance of staying in. There are certainties, near certainties and unknowns in any path that people might decide to take. The certainties here are that we will go on with much of the same, receiving edicts from the unelected Commission in Brussels and with no right of veto in our own Parliament. We will continue to send net contributions of around £10 billion a year to Brussels. We will be unable to make any free trade treaties of our own with countries around the world because that is an EU competence and we have no right to do so. Of course, we will continue to lose cases at the European Court of Justice. To date, we have lost 101 out of 130 and I am sure that will go on.
However, it is the near certainties about Europe that are much more troubling, and no one has really mentioned them. I am quite interested in this. The immigration crisis is leading now to the destruction of the Schengen area. No one has much doubt that the Schengen area is about to come to a grinding halt. How long can we go on having free movement of labour in Europe if we go on getting these massive immigration flows coming in? I would have thought that threatened it. A growing number of economists say that the eurozone is now completely unsustainable. For some time it has operated on the basis that it is much too cheap for the northern countries such as Germany and Holland and much too expensive for those in southern areas of the eurozone. That means it cannot go on as it is and there must be limited time before it eventually collapses. The problem with all this is that we are somewhat shackled, not to a corpse but certainly to a dying man. One must ask whether that is really the future we want for this country.
The unknown, of course, is that we do not know how long all this will take to map out. I am absolutely sure that the eurozone will eventually break up and then there is the question of whether it will take the rest of the EU with it when that happens.
Let us put the criteria for Brexit. As my noble friend Lord Lawson said, what we absolutely know is that if we vote to come out we will repeal the accession Act 1972, which means we will not be subjected to any more edicts from Brussels. We will also be £350 million a week better off as the result of not sending money to Europe. We will gain the freedom to create our own treaties, which is very important. Let us face it: the future of economics is not in the EU. The future of trade is all over the world and we should establish treaties with countries across the globe. We will regain control of our borders. In light of the immigration flows at the moment, that must be a good idea. Then, of course, under the existing organisation, we will have two years anyway to negotiate a new treaty with the EU. I sincerely hope that that will be a free-trade treaty, which will put us on a par with those countries that are not asked to pay contributions or to obey every edict that comes out of Europe.
The unknowns are that we do not know how long these negotiations might take or what effect this will have on inward investment into the United Kingdom. On the other hand, there might be people who will invest in the United Kingdom because they like us having less legislative pressure on our businesses than in the past. The fact is that the eurozone faces a major crisis and its survival is at stake. If the eurozone collapses—as many people are coming to the conclusion that it must in the fullness of time—it is a question of whether the EU stays together as well. In that case, we should get out before this disaster comes across the whole of the EU.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I do not like to dismay so many of my friends but I believe that Britain should withdraw from the European Union. My friends who disagree with me insist that it is essential that we remain for our security and our prosperity. It is absurd to suggest that the countries of the European Union will cease to co-operate with us on security matters if we leave: their own security will require it. As to prosperity, the truth is that no one knows whether we will be a little richer or a little poorer in the next few years—whether we are in or out of the European Union. Respected and dispassionate economic commentators such as Roger Bootle judge that the economic arguments are inconclusive.
Britain joined the EEC late and in 1975, when the establishment instructed an electorate that was more deferential than it is now, voters accepted its advice. It is true that in our history and culture Britain is and always will be European. Those of us who are sceptical about the European Union can honour the ideal of peace that animated its founders but the reality is that Britain has never been at home within the political structures of the European Union.
Of course, the European Union now is not the same as the European Economic Community that we joined in 1975. The most important change has been the creation of the eurozone. That has been a disaster. The well-intentioned architects of the eurozone inflicted the torment of mass unemployment, particularly on young people, in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. If the countries of the eurozone proceed towards political union we shall be marginalised; if they do not, the eurozone will remain an economic disaster zone. We opted out of the eurozone but we cannot escape its effects, which include depressed demand in export markets that are important to us, the contagion of financial instability and the relative decline of the European Union in relation to the global economy.
The other area where the EU is palpably failing is migration. The incapacity of the European Union to deal with the challenge of mass immigration has grievous human consequences and is setting alight dangerous nationalisms and atavisms. I do not want the debate in Britain about the referendum to be an unpleasant one over immigration. It is entirely consistent with wanting Britain to leave the European Union that one should want Britain also to be a liberal and outward-looking society.
The European Union has no means of democratic remedy for these failures. No European demos has emerged. The European Parliament fails convincingly to express the will of the people of Europe across national boundaries. The institutions of the European Union were created not to be truly democratic but to permit the exercise of enlightened officialdom. The fundamental reform that the Prime Minister pledged to seek has been unobtainable. The democratic deficit of the European Union provokes deep discontent and not only in Britain. In the 21st century, citizens want their institutions of government to be transparent and accountable. The current system of bureaucratic condescension and elite wrangling might have been acceptable in 1957 but should not be in 2016.
Those who want to remain say that none of this really matters and that what is important is that we will have more power if we stay inside. But for all his efforts on the inside, the Prime Minister has been able to achieve only marginal changes in policy. To be subject in so many decisions to qualified majority voting does not feel like power. To suffer the all too often abysmal policy-making and administration of the Commission feels like a poor substitute for self-government.
We would not be powerless outside. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. We have businesses that can conquer world markets. The City of London is a major financial centre. We still have a Civil Service well able to support Ministers to negotiate the new relationships that we will need. We have the best universities in Europe. We have an envied culture. We have numerous other treaties and alliances, and businesses in the European Union will continue to wish to trade with us. The alternative to membership of the EU will not be isolation. Of course, no one can predict the precise nature of the arrangements that will be negotiated—but, if I may say so, it is a silly and disingenuous tactic to scare people with that uncertainty. What is certain is that we will have a strong hand to play.
The Prime Minister and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Mandelson rightly made the distinction between power and sovereignty, but they were too dismissive of sovereignty. Historically, Britain has defined itself in terms of the institutions of the monarchy and parliamentary government. It should be a matter of national and democratic self-respect for Britain that we make our own laws in our own Parliaments accountable to our own people who will be able to dismiss those who govern them if they disapprove of them. We should resume the sovereignty that we lent to the EEC in 1972. When Parliament passed the European Communities Act, it undermined itself and our parliamentary democracy. That has been a major cause of the disaffection with politics that has grown so worryingly since that time.
Government in the modern world will be intensely difficult, whether we are in the European Union or out of it. But if we have the courage to take responsibility in our own democracy, we will find a new clarity, purpose, maturity and confidence. Even the Scots may prefer it. We should not be fearful of this responsibility. The remain campaign should elevate its tactics above the politics of fear. I say to my own party, the Labour Party, that it should not fear that it cannot win a general election and govern decently and generously in the interests of working people and all our people. In the words of Franklin D Roosevelt, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is a commonplace to state that we live in an interconnected, global universe. Many noble Lords have already made this point so I will not dwell upon it, but belonging to the largest trading group in the world undoubtedly gives us influence in those areas where international bodies take decisions that affect the daily lives of our own people.
I want to concentrate on just two issues. The fundamental challenge for the European Union is to identify those areas where, by acting together, the 28 member states can exercise greater influence over our interests and values without undermining the essential values of individual nation states, which provide—I am sure noble Lords will agree—a sense of belonging and social cohesion. But it has to be said that over the years the influence of national parliaments has been progressively diminished by Brussels and the Commission. One only has to look at the number of so-called patriotic parties that have emerged right across Europe to see the damage that this has done to the standing of the European Union right across Europe.
When the principle of subsidiarity was introduced into the treaty at Maastricht, I thought, “That’s it, game over. Nothing will ever be done centrally that can properly be done at national level”. How wrong I was. Since then a bureaucratic procedure was built around the principle of subsidiarity called the yellow card system, which has, to all intents and purposes, neutered this great principle. One of the things that the Prime Minister has achieved is to upgrade that yellow card to a red card, which enables national parliaments to block any proposals put forward by the Commission which they feel breach the principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, the period of time that national parliaments have to get their act together, as it were, has been increased by 50% from eight weeks to 12 weeks.
Most of the comment and debate on the agreement made in Brussels has centred on a whole range of other important issues. I certainly do not want to diminish their importance other than to emphasise that many of the concerns that have been raised have their roots in the way in which national parliaments and national Governments have been slowly pushed aside by the Brussels bureaucracy. So as we move forwards, the red card that the Prime Minister has achieved will prove to have enormous importance.
I want to deal with just one of the many myths put about by those who advocate withdrawal—namely, that the remaining members of the European Union would be anxious to do a deal with Britain because they export more to us than we do to them. Well, yes, we would be sitting at a table with a group of people whose treaty we have just treated with contempt. We have nearly 50% of our exports at stake: they have about 10%, most from France and Germany. In any event, the idea that they would be in a hurry to produce a deal is not the case because they would be able to continue to trade with Great Britain through the WTO rules. So while I very much doubt that those who advocate leaving the European Union could achieve as good a deal as Norway, let us just give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Norway contributes to the EU 80% of what we do and accepts unlimited EU immigration. Actually it has a higher percentage of EU immigrants than we do. It not only abides by the single market regulations but has to accept all new directives over which it has no say whatever. It is actually called “fax diplomacy”. The directive is sent to the Norwegian parliament and it has 90 days to implement it. I find it ironic that UKIP and its friends who are advocating withdrawal are waving the national flag when in fact they are waving goodbye to national parliamentary sovereignty.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I just want to put the noble Lord straight. It has never been UKIP’s policy to emulate the European Economic Area and Norway’s position. We feel that we can do something very much better for ourselves.
Lord Garel-Jones
The quick answer to that is: you will not. I mention Norway’s deal only because I think that is much better than the one we would eventually get.
So the only thing that is certain about Brexit is uncertainty, and it is an uncertainty that will last for a very considerable time indeed. In the mean time, the Prime Minister has negotiated an agreement, with some elements specific to Great Britain and others that will benefit the whole European Union. European negotiations, as many noble Lords here know, are complex and difficult and involve a great deal of compromise. Compromises have to be made on all sides. That is what Margaret Thatcher did in the Single European Act, it is what John Major did in Maastricht, and it is what David Cameron has just done in Brussels.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the setting of a date for the referendum and I support the case for remaining in the European Union set out in the White Paper. I hesitated before putting my name on this rather long speakers list but I am glad that I did because I just do not recognise the European Union that so many noble Lords have described—where apparently we have no friends, can win no votes and have no influence.
I thought it was Britain that had led the way in creating the single market, in securing admission of the members of the former communist bloc, in opposing Putin and securing a united approach to Iran, in pushing a free trade agenda and in living up to all of General de Gaulle’s worst nightmares. Of course the EU is not perfect. Of course it needs continuing reform. But we are not alone in thinking that. If we would for once drop the grumpy old man act and seek out our allies, we would find them. But for now our focus has to be on the referendum. I hope that the positive case for our membership will be made in this campaign and that it will not descend into an unrelenting diet of negativity.
I want us to convince the British people of the benefits of the European Union, as I have done since I rather proudly had my first and indeed only letter published in a national newspaper in 1993, calling for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. I wanted then—and I want us now—to show why, despite all the inevitable frustrations of any multinational organisation, the EU is a massive force for good in the world, that Britain is a massive force for good within the EU, and that British exit would be very bad not only for Britain but for the European Union.
My case for the European Union is a simple one. It is about peace, prosperity and solidarity in the face of the many challenges that confront our world. It is about the benefits of working together rather than drifting apart in antagonism and misunderstanding. It is about avoiding a descent into the nationalist competition and conflict that have afflicted our continent so many times in the past.
While I want a campaign that focuses on the positive, I am not persuaded by those who object when the facts are pointed out to them—the Brexiters who cry, “Project Fear” every time someone puts a point to them that they cannot or will not answer. This was the tactic of the nationalists in the Scottish referendum. Unable to answer some of the most basic questions about their future outside our union, they shouted, “Project Fear” to distract attention. So let us not be distracted by those Brexiters who have decided to take a lesson straight out of the nationalists’ playbook. Let us be relentless in reminding them of reality and challenging them to deal with it.
On the day that the referendum date was announced, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, spoke on BBC radio. He was asked what life would look like after Britain had left the European Union. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, he said, “That’s simple; it will be like it was before the EU”. The noble Lord went on to describe, in some detail, his pride in Britain as a country that had intervened on numerous occasions to rescue Europe from war and domination. He catalogued the occasions over many centuries, from the days of, in his words, “the dictator Philip of Spain”, through the Napoleonic Wars and into the First and Second World Wars. I do not know exactly how many millions of lives were lost in those conflicts but I do know that arrangements that bring people together to work in partnership for peace and prosperity are better than the arrangements we have had in the past and may, if some Brexiters get their way, end up with in the future.
This is not some tired historical discussion. Today the external pressures on Europe are greater than they have been for decades and the internal threat from nationalists selling divisive politics and beggar-my-neighbour economics is higher than it has been since the 1930s. In such circumstances, I am sorry to see distinguished former Cabinet Ministers, who I feel I grew up with, drinking the elixir of Brexit. Many of them played important roles in the development and success of the European Union and the single market. All of them have had the privilege of living the majority of their lives free from the threat of European war, as part of a European project which has helped nurture democracy in the former fascist and communist states of southern and eastern Europe and has contributed to delivering peace and prosperity to our continent.
So I say to the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Lawson, Lord Howard, and others: I want my generation and the generations that follow to continue to share in the privilege that they themselves have enjoyed. I want them to continue to work, study and holiday throughout Europe. I want them never again to fight their way across it. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in declaring his support for Brexit today, described the referendum as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I hope that it will not be a one-off opportunity for his generation to screw up the world for my generation and the generations to come.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, at this late hour a lot has been said already. I wish to make a specific argument about the document The Best of Both Worlds and a general one about the provision of accurate information during the campaign that we face.
On the second page of the Prime Minister’s foreword, he says:
“Leaving Europe would threaten our economic and our national security”.
But nobody on either side of this argument is talking about leaving Europe. We are talking about leaving the political arrangement known as the European Union, as the Prime Minister himself said in his Bloomberg speech in 2013:
“If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe”.
This is not just a semantic point. It goes to the heart of the problem that I have with this and other dossiers put out by the Government supposedly to inform voters before the referendum. Again and again these documents make claims for the European Union that it does not deserve. The credit or the blame often lies elsewhere—or at least is shared elsewhere with inter- governmental collaborations or with national decisions. Let me give a few examples.
On page 42, The Best of Both Worlds makes the claim that EU membership is necessary to combat Russian aggression in Ukraine. The evidence for this claim is threadbare to say the least. The US and Canada both imposed sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine and, indeed, it is arguable that the EU bears some responsibility—some, not a lot—for provoking Russia with the ill-judged inclusion of military matters in its negotiation with Ukraine. On page 23, it is claimed that EU membership is necessary to protect UK energy security. How can this be when 60% of our imported gas comes from Norway and 60% of our coal from Russia, Colombia and America? There is no common EU energy policy. On page 42, The Best of Both Worlds makes the claim that EU membership is necessary to deal with Ebola. This is nonsense. Norway made a significant contribution to fighting Ebola. The EU has treaty obligations to co-operate with third countries in the field of public health. Anyway, it was mainly through the World Health Organization that we made our magnificent and leading contribution to defeating that terrifying outbreak in Sierra Leone.
I could just about understand if these frankly mendacious claims were being made on behalf of the remain campaign in the cut and thrust of debate. After all, that campaign has been extraordinarily careless with facts and numbers already. Only this afternoon, before the Treasury Select Committee in the other place, the leaders of the BSE campaign admitted that 3 million jobs would not be lost, that all the trading would go on, and that claims of an £11 billion rise in prices are entirely speculative—and, therefore, that many of their own claims cannot be trusted. But the claims in The Best of Both Worlds are being made by civil servants in supposedly neutral documents. One reason this matters, as I argued when the European Union Referendum Bill was before this House, is that we must make this a final decision that all sides can respect going into the future. So it is vital that the playing field is level and the Government are seen to give accurate information that is not misleading. I have to say that the worries that some of us voiced during those debates about purdah and related matters look increasingly justified. I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth was quite right to use the word “propaganda” earlier this afternoon.
Will my noble friend the Minister take great care to give credit to intergovernmental arrangements and national actions and not to fall for exaggerated claims made on behalf of the political and bureaucratic arrangements within the EU? Listening to some of the speeches this afternoon, you would think that the sun could not rise in the east tomorrow morning if the European Commission did not command it and that it would not if we left the European Union. We hear that the EU is a military alliance, apparently eclipsing the role of NATO. We hear that the EU is to be given credit that is actually due to the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the G20, the G7, Basel, Codex, Five Eyes and many more such international collaborations. Again and again, we find that standards that are set at the international level are simply transmitted through the EU to us.
In the case of scientific co-operation, not only is our closest scientific co-operator—measured by the number of co-authors on scientific papers—the United States, not the EU, but many of the formal scientific collaborations across the continent of Europe, such as the European Molecular Biology Organization, the fusion project ITER, the European Space Agency, and the particle physics laboratory CERN are not EU projects, they are European projects. Indeed, CERN has an accelerator which runs under an EU external border. Furthermore, even the EU’s science funding projects, FP7 and Horizon 2020, have 13 non-EU members in them including Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Israel and other countries. I ask my noble friend the Minister: can we please not make the mistake of using “Europe” when we mean the EU, and not imply that they are the same thing when they are not? One is a political and bureaucratic supranational body with a democratic deficit and the other is a principle of international collaboration.
To end on another point, I agree with what has been said on the other side of this argument: that we should remain civil and amicable throughout this process. So it is that I have to report a worrying development. As I was coming through Westminster Tube station yesterday and limping, unfortunately, because of my sciatica, I passed the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who said to me, “Damn—I told them to shoot your arm, not your leg”.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, in an awful lot of the debates that have gone before today’s debate in the House, I found it mystifying when people argued that they always saw the relationship with Europe and its institutions in terms of what we could get from it to strengthen our economy, and that they were completely against the concept of wider political activity and commitment within Europe. Why do I not understand that approach? It is because I was a young man in the post-war period and remember that the atmosphere, right from the beginning, was highly political. When the European Coal and Steel Community was established, it was not an end in itself. It was established because those who did so desperately wanted a peaceful, stable Europe—and with that, the opportunity to make a contribution to a peaceful, stable world.
When we moved into the Common Market, that was true, too. For many of the statesmen who brought it into existence, it was not an end in itself. It was a means of achieving the reality to which they all aspired. I say to those on the other side that, as a committed member of my own party, I was always inspired by Churchill on this. He had a vision that our future depended on working with the world, and that if we were to establish one that was peaceful and stable we would need the institutions with which to do it. I have always therefore seen this as a story of evolution but if that evolution was to be successful, it would depend above all on visionary leadership. What has been wrong with our participation in the European Union is that we have played the game badly. We have always put a sort of defensive position to the British public.
I was a Minister responsible for Europe, way back in the 1970s. When I was fulfilling that task, there was an attitude that what you really should do as a Minister was come out of your negotiations in committee saying, “My God, in spite of all the pressures, dangers and threats coming from Europe in this context, I have secured these safeguards for the British people”. I really believed in those days that we needed some Ministers who would come out of committee saying, “We’ve had a terrific tussle with this issue”, then explain what the issue was and say, “As a result of that tussle and argument, we have achieved this solution in the interests of the European people, and in their interests we are looking to the interests of the British people”. In the world in which we live, we cannot separate the well-being and security of the British people from those of the wider European community, so we need that kind of leadership. Our problem in persuading the public now is that we have played it that way and have not demonstrated consistently how effective and indispensable Europe is for achieving the very aspirations that are dear to their hearts. I make this point because, if those of us who believe that we should stay in succeed in the referendum, we cannot sweep under the carpet that task of leadership not only within the community but for the British public in terms of what it is all about and how it is relevant to those issues.
There is another issue—I know that I tread on some toes when I say this—but, because of the complexity of the task, a centre of expertise around Europe has built up, and with that has gone a culture of elitism that has alienated people. I have often thought that was unfortunate, because we have to enable that elite itself to understand how dependent it is on the good will and positive identification of the people of the countries that are members. We have to take that issue very seriously—as we should with our own committee system on Europe, in seeing how far we can make it more real for ordinary people in the kind of witnesses we call, and so on, so that it is not again seen as part of an elitist game that does not relate to them.
I conclude by saying how glad I was to hear the opening speech from our side by my noble friend Lady Morgan—and, indeed, the speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Ashdown, who is not in his place at the moment. They spelled out which issues are facing the world and how we simply cannot face them without working together with others. We may not be doing it perfectly, but the challenge to leadership is how we get it right, not how we walk away from the collaboration and co-operation and bury our heads in the sand. The challenge is to say that we cannot have a peaceful world without co-operation and we must have the institutions within which we can co-operate. Our role is to provide leadership and moral inspiration, showing the importance of tolerance and human rights, not just as an end in themselves but as a manifestation of the tolerant and inclusive kind of civilisation that we not only want but is indispensable to humanity’s future.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I have always believed that as the world evolves it will be necessary for political processes and the conduct of public business to adapt. For that reason, I have been a supporter of this country’s membership of the European Union and its predecessors, albeit they are far from perfect. They have brought to this country a wide range of benefits, many of them not at all easily defined as economic. I like our country being a member, and I believe that my family have gained great benefits and advantage from that.
We live in an interdependent world of networks, and we cannot simply unilaterally decouple from it all. Change has to be negotiated, and we must all recognise as part of those negotiations that our priorities may be different from other people’s; that is what our Prime Minister has recognised and what he has done. It is an interesting aspect of all this to me as a Conservative, but as someone who has also been a long-standing supporter of our membership of the European Union, that for him the line of least resistance in the Tory Party today would have been to go hell-for-leather for Brexit. But he has not done that; he believes, firmly, from the position that he is in, as do the majority of his colleagues, that the national interest should prevail and that it is in the national interest, despite all the difficulties that it is posing him, that we remain members.
For my part, there are two particularly significant reforms that the Prime Minister has achieved—not necessarily the headline reforms. The first relates to the relationship between those countries in the eurozone and those countries outside. It has been very important properly to entrench the fact that we cannot be discriminated against and cannot be compelled to bail out the eurozone if a disaster strikes there. It is interesting, too, that it was open to those countries that have gone into the eurozone to have done it completely outside the European Union mechanism. It is only because it is part of it that we are in a position to have secured that.
Secondly, the emphasis on the role of national parliaments is very important. It seems to me, not least because I have spent 10 years in the European Parliament, that the Monnet model of how the constitutional arrangements across the Union should work has not worked very well. There is a democratic chasm between some of the decision-making at European level and the citizen which needs to be bridged, and this could begin to be part of the process of doing that.
On a previous occasion, I explained that I thought that any fool could get divorced; the difficult thing is then dealing with the children and the financial settlement. If you look at Article 50, you see that once you press the button, you are not only out of what you want but you are out of everything. There seems to be absolutely no consensus about what should happen if we leave. Some people say that we should try to renegotiate, and others say that we should rely on the World Trade Organization. I am worried by the fact that there is no apparent plan from those who wish us to leave the union about what happens next. I do not think it is all right simply to say, sanguinely, “Well, it’ll be all right on the night”. I think they owe it to the public to be a bit more precise and firm about what the proposition they are putting in front of them might be.
I am concerned because, whether or not it is strictly logical, there is clearly a real risk to the union between England and Scotland. I live just south of Scotland, and what happens there is going to make quite a big difference to me. I am concerned that if we leave the European arrest warrant many of the security arrangements tied up with the Anglo-Irish agreement may well fall apart. That matters.
I do not believe in “one leap and we will be free from bureaucracy”. I was reading the newspaper coming up to London this morning, and read that the RPA’s activities have just been reviewed by the other place. The RPA is a bureaucratic nightmare. If you look at the administration surrounding the health service and education, you get the feeling that there is no country in the world that is more enthusiastic about bureaucracy than this one. I simply do not believe that in fact jobsworth does not really like bureaucracy here in England.
One thing is certain about Brexit: it is that, if you think about it, it is inevitable that once we have left the club, whatever terms we are offered later will be less good than the terms we are on now. The other thing that is absolutely clear to me as a lawyer, and having talked to many lawyers who are much better lawyers than I am, is that the legal unravelling of the arrangements we have in place are going to be very long, very drawn out, very convoluted and very expensive. I suspect that they would take a lot of people’s eyes off the ball, and that is not desirable. It appears to me that the case for Brexit is basically an article of faith; it is a step in the dark. It seems to me that I and the British public are being asked to stake the farm and everything else besides on a runner that has never previously run in a small race on a wet Wednesday afternoon—the 3.15 at Uttoxeter—and I do not think it is a good thing to do.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Being privileged, as I am, to sit behind the heirs and disciples of Thatcher, I have been thinking about how she would have reacted to this White Paper and this debate. When she sent me to be her negotiator in Brussels, her instructions were quite simple: find out what the children are doing and tell them to stop it. She was clear that we should be in every room, playing a central part, with a seat at the table and banging the table. She was certainly not sentimental, but she knew what solidarity meant. She was extremely generous to González because she understood how important EU accession was for the consolidation of democracy in Spain, so she sided with Kohl—not her natural instinct—and against Giscard to ensure that Spain got into the club. She never forgot that in the Falklands crisis when Reagan wobbled, Mitterrand was the first foreign head of government to ring and promise full support, which he delivered. In her Bruges speech, which is well-remembered throughout central Europe now, she said that she was convinced that the great cities of central Europe would again escape from the iron curtain and enjoy membership of the community of western democracies and the four freedoms that go with it. What she would do, were she here now, is only speculation. I suspect that she would be bustling over to Brussels to sort out this Schengen nonsense and to do something about Syria—and deal with the 10 million displaced people and 5 million refugees. I do not think she would be glorying in standing aside and not being involved. Although it was ruthlessly unsentimental and not always fun, she felt that we should have a seat at the table and felt a sense of solidarity. Sometimes these days I miss that.
Speaking late in the debate has the disadvantage that all the points one wanted to make have already been made by one’s own side, but it does permit one to comment on points made by the other side. I dare to venture a comment on points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson of Blaby and Lord Howard of Lympne—and possibly their disciple, the Diogenes of Swindon, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. This is on the theme of Thatcher’s heirs.
I have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who put up with me as his Private Secretary for far too long, and who was excessively polite about a document I drafted for him, which—to put it mildly—did not advance his career. But today Homer may have nodded. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, claimed that the White Paper which we are debating contained a major lacuna because it did not refer to the sentence of page 12 of the European Council conclusions text, which states that,
“Member states not participating in the further deepening of economic monetary union will not create obstacles to but will facilitate such further deepening while this process will, conversely, respect the rights and competences of the non-participating Member States”.
I think he may have missed paragraph 2.12 in the White Paper, which seems to me to summarise fairly that sentence.
On the substantive point, I am surprised: the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, like the current Chancellor, has always argued with ruthless logic—inexorable logic—that the eurozone, in order to survive, needs to deepen and strengthen. So why is he complaining when in this text member states not participating in the further deepening of economic and monetary union will not create obstacles to a process which he believes is in their interest and in ours?
Lord Lawson of Blaby
If the noble Lord will allow me, he has made two mistakes, not one. In the first place, it is in the interest of the peoples of Europe not to try to make a success of the eurozone and monetary union, but to abandon it. It has been a complete disaster; it will be in the interests of the people of Europe to abandon it. Secondly, I said that “facilitating the deepening” means that if they think that further powers should go from the member states, including the United Kingdom, to the centre in order to facilitate a further deepening, we are obliged to go along with that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
On the second point, I have to correct the noble Lord. The sentence is clearly about further integration inside the eurozone without additional powers being passed by member states outside the eurozone. On the first point, I can only apologise. I had myself thought that the former Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, agreed with the present Chancellor that it was in the interests of the UK that the eurozone market should not collapse and that it was in the interests of the UK economy that these arrangements should survive. That is the policy of this Government. I had thought it was a policy supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.
The exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, did not quite bring out the fact that of course we could trade with other third countries on WTO terms. The terms that we trade on now, which have been secured by the EU, are much better than WTO terms, because they have been secured using the muscle of a market of 500 million people. That is a fairly fundamental point. The key point on trade is that if we leave, we lose.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, on the other hand, did seem to contain a lacuna, which I greatly welcomed; this time he did not advance what I call the Maurice Sendak theory. The Sendak argument—I call it that in tribute to that great literary work, Where the Wild Things Are—is one that the noble Lord has advanced in public several times; I heard him explaining it on the radio the other day. I think it is a view held by Mr Cummings—not the cartoonist but the conspirator. The argument is that if the nation votes to leave on 23 June, we should not leave but should stay firmly where we are, saying and doing nothing, not invoking Article 50, and the wild things will all come rushing to us as supplicants, saying, to quote from the great book:
“Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
This is a theory that Mr Boris Johnson advanced a few months ago and then resiled from a few months ago, and then advanced again a fortnight ago and then resiled from this week; his bicycle wobbles but he remains vertical. Sadly, the wild things are fiction. The fact is that the other member states are fed up with us. To them, this week’s European Council on the refugee crisis is much more important than was the Council, and the conclusions, that we are debating now.
It is surreal that any UK Government could decide not to act on a no referendum. It is even more surreal that the French press, which believes that Mr Cameron got away with murder, could agree that in the event of a no, murder should be followed by massacre.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Lord says that the French Government are furious at what the Prime Minister got away with, but the French Foreign Minister is on the record as saying that the Prime Minister achieved nothing of substance.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I thank the noble Lord for his helpful intervention. I believe that if we were to say no, our decision would be greeted with regret in most EU capitals, but that regret would be accompanied by some relief that all the contingency concessions made to Mr Cameron would automatically fall away—and they would; that is what the European Council’s conclusions text says.
The different argument that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, advanced today is one that I have to take much more seriously. This time it is the rest of the world that comes as supplicants, rather than the EU 27, to a self-confident UK freed of the shackles of the European Union, bestriding the world, trading on our own terms and striking new alliances. The Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Japanese and Indian Governments have all made clear that they believe it is in their interests and ours that we stay, not go. That is the view of the US Administration, the Government in Beijing and the G20. I do not believe that the rest of the world is waiting to do business with us on our terms.
Despite reservations about the strategy that the Government have followed, I have to say that I warmly endorse and welcome the conclusions of their White Paper: we are better off, safer and stronger in the EU. That is certainly true.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. We worked together extremely closely in Brussels. He was never my Private Secretary, and I think I am a bit relieved that he was not. We were on the same side—at least I think we were, most of the time. I always used to rely on the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to tell me what the mind-set was of those against whom I was negotiating and he had very good judgment. However, I was rather surprised today when he whispered in my ear, “I am very pleased you haven’t made up your mind about whether we should remain in the European Union”.
He had a bit of a point in that I have found this quite a difficult decision. Some people may not believe that, but it is a very momentous decision. It is a great change in British policy over 40 years and, of course, it is an extremely difficult decision to be in argument with colleagues and close friends.
I have never before argued that we should leave the European Union. I have been accused of arguing that. I know that one should never refer to one’s own speeches, but in 1994 I made a speech in which I was accused of advocating withdrawal. What I actually said in 1994—and it caused a bit of a storm at the time—was that the EU was becoming such a political union that the time would come when we would have to choose between being part of that political union or going on our own way. I think that was, probably quite by chance, what happened subsequently. Europe integrated more and more and had a different vision of its future from what we had.
Taking a longer view of our relationship with Europe; it has never been a comfortable one. It has been awkward all along. We had to get out of Schengen; it was not comfortable for us. We had to get out of the single currency; it did not fit our ambitions for Europe. Our great contribution to Europe was supposed to be the single market and the acceptance of qualified majority voting. Well, yes, up to a point, although there has been an awful lot of argument over whether Lady Thatcher would have been in favour of remaining in the EU or coming out. The one thing I do know about Mrs Thatcher is that she bitterly regretted the introduction of qualified majority voting. She felt she was misled and that it was a great step in the wrong direction.
Some people think we have not been constructive enough in our attitude to Europe. I know Tony Blair would not object to my revealing a private conversation. I remember having a conversation with him on a train going to Darlington. We were discussing his approach to Europe. He said, “The answer to Europe is to be constructive. Get in there, be positive, agree with them and they will all come round to our way of thinking”. I am afraid I said to him, “I have seen that movie several times and it always had the same ending”. It did not work for Tony Blair either.
We have heard today arguments about the pooling of sovereignty—there is nothing at stake, it is just the pooling of sovereignty and this is very similar to NATO. NATO is a military alliance, which is quite different from transferring law-making powers to a body whose law is superior to your own domestic law. Not for nothing did Elmar Brok, a leading member of the European Parliament and a close ally of Mrs Merkel, describe the European Union as “a state under construction”.
I think many people have become disillusioned in Britain because of the sleight of hand with which that objective has been concealed; the way in which the constitutional treaty became the treaty of Lisbon; the way in which countries have been asked to vote several times when they voted the wrong way in referenda. It is for all those reasons that disillusionment has set in in Britain. Many people such as myself believe that it would be far better to have a relationship based on economics alone.
Many people have argued in this debate that for us to sell to the single market of Europe we have to be part of it. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—I agree I did not put it very well or clearly but I think it is an important point—that the United States has Europe as its main trading partner. Since 2011, the United States has sold more in goods than the UK has. It is not a member and it does not have any say in the rules, but it does not find that a huge obstacle. Services are also extremely important, because people say the future is services. They say that the British economy is strong in services and indeed it is, but the United States exported to the European Union over $200 billion worth of services whereas the United Kingdom only exported less than £100 million of services. That, I suggest, makes a very strong dent in the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, can deal with that in her reply. She did not reply very well before, but we will listen to her when she replies to that argument.
My noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Tugendhat asked the question that is asked all the time. They say that we who are sympathetic to departure from the EU never spell out the exact terms on which we would have a trade relationship with Europe. I am not sure exactly what detail they want us to go into. Obviously nobody can say what the tariff on this or that, on shoes or clothes, will be. The question ought to be: is there a deal available or is there not? Is there a negotiated free trade deal available or not? My noble friend Lord Howard quoted what Jacques Delors said—that the British are probably interested only in an economic relationship with the European Union and, therefore, if they wish to leave, we should give them an economic relationship and a free trade area.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I must counter the noble Lord. I think that the quotation by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was completely accurate. What Delors said was that you can have an EEA, which is what the Norwegians have, or you can have a free trade agreement, which is what a lot of countries round the world have, but you cannot have access to the single market.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
That was not what Delors said at all. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howard will not mind me revealing that he took the quotation from material that I supplied to him. That was not remotely what Delors said. I further inform the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, if I may, that Jacques Delors said it several years ago, and, much more recently, Mr Schauble, the German Finance Minister, and, I believe, the Economic Minister of Germany, both stated that a free trade agreement with Britain would be not just desirable but, from a German point of view, necessary. That is a very important point. However, my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones poured cold water on the argument that it matters enormously to the people in Europe to have an agreement. It matters to them as much as it matters to us. It is not a question of surpluses or deficits; the German manufacturers want to know exactly on what terms they could sell into the UK market just as we would need to know on what terms we could sell into the German market. It is a question of mutual need.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am happy to give way, but I have already taken eight minutes. I will let the House judge who should intervene.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
I am so grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sorry if I test the patience of the House. Of course it is the case that the deal will be available; the question is at what price and for how long. Of course it is the case that some countries in Europe would want that deal, and Germany is one of them, for the reasons that the noble Lord has very appropriately expressed. However, the point is that that deal has to be agreed by all 27, and that is where the difficulty is going to come. The difficulty will be not be with Germany, which has an interest, but with the many others that do not. I am sure that the noble Lord understands that.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I understand what the noble Lord is saying but I do not accept that other countries are necessarily going to object. If Germany, the most important country in Europe, finds it overwhelmingly in its interest to have a trade deal with Britain, and has declared well in advance of this happening or being a possibility that it thinks it would be necessary and desirable, then I think we can assume that many other countries in Europe would follow. What I did not understand was the point made by my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones that somehow people would be less willing to have a trade agreement because we had shown contempt for the European Union by deciding to withdraw. Surely if a country makes a democratic decision simply that it does not want to be part of a political agreement with another group of countries, that is not a cause for anger or resentment; that would be completely against the ideals that the European Union is meant to stand for.
I have spoken too long. I believe that there are important areas where we have lost control of our own affairs in the development of the political union in Europe. It is quite true that the Prime Minister has achieved some worthwhile and notable concessions.
I believe that he has achieved as much as any person could have achieved, but that will still leave us open to the need that always exists in the political bodies of Europe—the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice—to have another leap forward. Just look how they undermined our opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights that Tony Blair thought he had achieved.
It is wrong to say that there is a status quo option on the ballot paper in the referendum. There is no status quo. Europe will continue to develop and integrate. When people cast their votes they must think not just of the present but of what Europe and Britain will look like in 40 years. That is the question.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a special privilege to take part in this most important debate about the future of our country and of our esteemed neighbouring countries. I appreciate that it is an unusual occasion when I and my Labour colleagues speak on the same side as the Conservative Government. My own early views of Europe and the world came from my grandparents. Colin talked about the German culture and medicine that saved his life after being captured in the trenches. Maxwell talked about our uncles who died in the trenches and in testing aircraft. After the First and Second World Wars, Maxwell flew the flag of the League of Nations and then of the United Nations, and I hope that we will be flying the EU flag on 23 June after we win the referendum.
In my professional life as a scientist and engineer, I was first impressed by the science and culture of Russia. Perhaps we should acknowledge and appreciate the UK spaceman in the satellite who waved to us on St David’s day.
My generation of scientists was excited by the growing European networks and facilities extending from the Atlantic to the Urals, even during the Cold War, but later we were able to benefit from growing collaboration in Europe as the new political structures were created. The early European networks after World War II in the 1960s and 1970s were not as strong as the great continental organisations in the United States. But as the EU was formed with significant budgets, exceptionally able EC officials and committees, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, underlined this afternoon, were able to use their diplomatic skills to connect the EC and the European Parliament to the intergovernmental European institutions, for example in nuclear and plasma physics and astronomy, weather forecasting, environment and biology. These were great developments. The EC role is sometimes dismissed, but it transformed those institutions and connected them to many useful projects, which set the agendas and standards for international science, technology and business worldwide.
Many UK SMEs—I declare an interest as a director of one—were funded by the EC to develop and apply science from these major projects. Evidence has been provided by research bodies and by business to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on the consequences of staying in the EU or leaving. The overwhelming conclusion has been that UK science and engineering has benefited from our involvement in the EU. Rolls-Royce, however, explained that the UK industry has not benefited as much as it might have done as a result of the UK policy to demolish the regional development agencies introduced five or six years ago.
The UK should do more to benefit from EU philosophy. We all know that in France and Germany the approach has been to—“pick winners” is the old phrase—create great projects such as the Ariane and Airbus projects, whereas the UK has not been part of the leadership of the projects.
Sadly, the Treasury still does not understand the philosophy. The Brexit criticism of UK membership of the EU is that it detracts from our sovereignty. The Science and Technology Committee has discussed this. The expert evidence emphasised that the EC and the European Parliament have been effective in listening to the concerns of people across Europe about the environment, human rights, working conditions, vacations —and have created these new rights.
I am surprised that this has not been mentioned today. The strongest argument for the democratic role of the EU came in comments by the Evening Standard business correspondent three days ago. The business correspondent asked Mr Murdoch why he was so keen that the UK should leave Europe. He said that it was quite simple: if the UK is out of Europe he just goes into No. 10 and they do what he tells them. If he goes to Brussels they take no notice. That is quite a strong argument to which we should listen.
A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is that one important role of the UK in Europe is based on our tremendously strong and capable universities, which are a great magnet. It is this aspect that brings many thousands of excellent students to Europe, and then many of them return to their countries. It is argued by some university administrators that if the UK was to leave Europe, this important part of our intellectual life would become considerably less attractive, with business consequences.
It seems curious that in the recent words of a high official of the Conservative Party, the UK is the corner shop of the world. I think he made a mistake and that he meant the workshop of the world, but that is what he said. Therefore, some people still have Napoleon’s view that we are a shop-keeping country. We are not. We are a great centre of intellectual and international learning. This aspect is important for the continued maintenance of our position in Europe.
Looking to the future, the ultimate goal for the UK is surely for it to use its pivotal position in the world and to join France in leaving the United Nations Security Council, which should of course have the European Union representing our Europe. There would then be a slot for somebody else. This would be the natural future. The idea that we are going to continue fighting for our little position in the world is not the way to look forward to the future.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I was struck by his comments thanking the European Union for its support for science and research. I will make a deal with him. I will give him £20 and then he can give me £10 back and I will try to understand the logic of his position. We are net contributors to the EU and the money we get back is our money. The difference is that we are told how to spend it by people who are not accountable to anyone.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Perhaps the noble Lord is not familiar with the research that has been done by Universities UK. It states that moneys which come through the programmes of the European Union are worth 1.4 times moneys that come from simple research in the UK without collaboration with others. Before he starts with “It’s our money” he should think of that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the noble Lord had been listening to me, the point that I was making—I am sure he understood it—is that we are net contributors to the EU and therefore what comes back is money that we have already contributed. If we did not have to join the EU we would have that money and be able to spend it on our priorities in science and research.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd—I am not sure whether he is in his place—talked about how Ministers were wrong in the way they operated within the EU. They would come back and announce that something had been a great triumph when it had been a disaster. I confess that I have been in that position. The person who turned disaster into triumph was the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He is brilliant at taking a disaster and making it look like a triumph—as we saw from his speech when he explained how the Prime Minister’s negotiation was a great triumph. I am delighted to see that he has lost none of skills.
However, the problem still remains. The fact that the Prime Minister, with all his energy and enthusiasm, spent six months going round the European capitals, flying here, there and everywhere, staying up half the night and coming back with a mouse of a negotiation, indicates just how impotent we have become in the European Union, and what is the central issue of this referendum campaign: how can we get back to a position where our Prime Minister can make minor changes to welfare without the permission of the European Union?
I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lady Anelay, that during the debates on the referendum Bill, she assured us that the Government would not abuse their position and use taxpayers’ money for a particular position. The documents that have been produced to date are a travesty of these promises. My noble friend Lord Ridley did an excellent job in highlighting some of these points.
I look at the stuff that is coming out from the Government in arguing for remaining in the EU. We are told that 3 million jobs will be lost and that cheap flights and holidays will be at risk. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is abroad saying that our economy will be subject to a great shock, and he is getting some of his chums in the G20 to join in the clamour. How that helps to strengthen the pound, I do not know. Special advisers are getting on to business leaders, cajoling them into signing letters, and generals and others are signing letters. We even have the Governor of the Bank of England—a position that has always been outside politics—saying that our country depends on “the kindness of strangers”—a quote from “A Streetcar Named Desire”, or Emma Thompson running down the country. How any of those things are advancing Britain’s interests, I do not understand.
Of course, there is the big business agenda. Why does big business like Europe? Because it can go to Europe and spend £1.5 billion on lobbying and shut out competition. We had a classic example of that today. Look at the front page of the Times where Europe has suddenly, unexpectedly, decided that vaping should be treated as a tobacco product, so the cost should go up. I wonder who has been lobbying Brussels to achieve that? The tobacco companies and others. Who will suffer disbenefit? The people of this country who, in their hundreds of thousands, have been able to give up smoking tobacco to have vaping.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I remember when I, along with others, tried to introduce anti-smoking legislation in the other place. We were lobbied again and again. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and all his colleagues were the people who acted on behalf of the tobacco companies. I would name some people if I had the time who were paid by the tobacco companies and who either were or went on to become Ministers in the Conservative Government, so he had better be careful.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The difference is that if the Government do something that is against the interests of the public, the people of Britain can throw them out. There is nothing they can do when Brussels passes a directive. It is almost impossible to reverse directives because you have to have the support of all the other member states—and all the horse trading that goes on.
I would like to tackle one of the arguments which is utterly irresponsible coming from unionists. It is the argument saying that if we vote to leave the European Union it will threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom and the Scots will vote to leave the union. For any unionist to make that argument is grossly irresponsible. First of all, as unionists, we believe in the United Kingdom. This is a United Kingdom decision. We do not accept the idea that there is no mandate for the whole of the United Kingdom. This is what got Labour into trouble because it started saying that the Tories did not have a mandate in Scotland. As a result, it fed the nationalist tiger and now it is reduced to one MP in Scotland. Let us not have any more of this notion that this is not a decision for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I was very struck also by the Times today, which published a letter from that great man Tam Dalyell, who defied the Labour Whip to vote for us to join the European Union and joined Ted Heath in the Lobbies. His letter in the Times pointed out that this is a ridiculous argument. There is no appetite for a further referendum in Scotland and, indeed, the Prime Minister has just stuffed the mouths of the Scottish nationalists with gold to get them to sign up to the new powers in the Scotland Bill. No Scot in their right mind will vote for bankruptcy because that is what independence would mean, with the oil price where it is and the current state of the economy in Scotland.
Of course, there are many positive benefits that could come to Scotland from being out of the European Union. Let us take one export industry—Scotch whisky—and one country. In India, Scotch whisky makes up 1% of the spirits that are drunk but the tariff is 150%. Yet the European Union has just failed again to reach a trade deal with India. We could do a trade deal that could be of huge benefit, and there are enough Indians and enough of a market to keep all the distilleries in Scotland working till the end of time in order to supply it. That is just one example.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord has had a go. When they say a trade deal would take 10 years or more, I ask: how long did it take to do the trade deal with Ukraine? It was done in one month. I believe that two issues are at stake here: cost and control. We need to be able to control immigration—not stop it, but decide what happens. How else are we going to meet our manifesto commitments on numbers, and how else are we going to prevent discrimination against people from Commonwealth countries and elsewhere in the world?
If we are honest with ourselves, this is about how we see ourselves as a country. Do we have the Mandelsonian view that it is all over, or do we see ourselves as a country with a great past and a great future, based on the innovation and expertise of its own people?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord says that I sound like Alex Salmond. That is another reason why the nationalists should not be taken seriously when they argue that leaving the EU would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The Scottish nationalists must be the first nationalist organisation in the history of the world to think it can get independence by joining a supra-national bureaucracy that is not accountable to the people concerned.
The noble Lord says that I sound like Alex Salmond. Perhaps, then, I shall conclude like Alex Salmond, by quoting Robert Burns:
Be Britain still to Britain true,
Amang oursels united;
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrangs be righted!
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, it has been an extraordinarily lively debate. My noble friend Lady Anelay said at the beginning that we would be trying the patience of the voters if the referendum were held any later, but I feel that I might try the patience of this House if the debate concludes any later. I would like to briefly reflect on the debate, especially on the very lively and powerful interventions that we have had from the Privy Council Bench—many generals under whom I served as a foot soldier in battles in the past.
The interventions have often concerned our economic relationship with the EU. As we come towards the end of the debate, the options are becoming clearer. There is some kind of Swiss or Norwegian option, involving joining the European Economic Area. The exact terms of that would have to be negotiated, but it would very probably involve accepting all the major freedoms of the single market. Indeed, the former Swiss Prime Minister has put it as follows:
“It therefore seems very optimistic to me for Leave campaigners to suggest that EU member states would simply grant the UK full access to the Single Market while allowing you to opt out of free movement”.
There is, therefore, some kind of deal on offer, but it involves accepting the product regulations and the four freedoms that come with membership of the European Economic Area. We do not have to go down that route if we leave. There are alternatives—and in several powerful interventions we have been told that the alternative is to look at the US relationship with the EU. That would indeed be a different model, which would not involve our joining the European Economic Area. The US-EU relationship still involves tariffs on US goods coming into the EU and vice versa. It involves customs controls on goods moving back and forth. In many ways, it would involve an increase in the red tape facing British businesses as they went through the same kind of hassle that US businesses now face. You have to comply with EU product regulations. That is why Lincoln Continentals are not cruising up and down the streets of Mayfair: they do not comply with EU regulations.
When it comes to services, the EU is absolutely clear—even clearer after the financial crisis—that if you wish to offer financial services in the EU you have to be based and regulated in the EU. Iceland is a warning about people offering services in the EU without being properly regulated in the area. Many American banks are located in London because—one among many reasons—that is how they access the EU market. Clearly, in a negotiation that led to our having a similar kind of relationship with the US, the EU would expect that type of arrangement. That is not because the EU is an unusually protectionist power. Let us be frank: the US similarly has a very protectionist attitude to competition from European countries, including ourselves. It is clearly in the British interest that these barriers between the EU and the US be reduced, and there is currently a negotiation aiming to do exactly that—TTIP. I do not believe that there is any prospect of any improvement in trade relations that could do better than the mutual powers of negotiation now happening between Europe and America. If America is to make any concessions to anyone for access to its markets, it will be to the EU and vice versa, so the best thing we can do is play a constructive role in those negotiations.
Another aspect of the relationship is the eurozone, on which the British Government have taken a strategic decision. Our approach to Europe was once described as, “Britain should be in the fast lane, but driving very slowly with everyone else flashing their lights behind us”. What we have decided to do with the eurozone is pull over and allow them to accelerate. There is an argument that this was a mistake, but my view is that if the eurozone is to succeed—it is clearly in our interest for it to succeed if at all possible, although it is a very confused and risky economic experiment—the deal is, “You go ahead; if you need to integrate, do so, but preserve our full rights as a member of the single market”. That is what has been secured.
It is not just a matter of economic arguments, though. We have also heard about democracy and democratic deficits. Very few people have put that argument more powerfully than my right honourable friend in another place, Michael Gove, in an excellent article setting out his views. I pulled up short when he said:
“EU rules dictate … the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds”.
He said that there is an EU rule that they have to be five kilometres away—an example of the trivial interference that we have from the EU. I have looked into this. There is indeed an EU habitats directive. It does not specify any five-kilometre rule about the location of housing next to heathland. That comes from Natural England, as it decides how it will interpret this EU directive. The five-kilometre rule is planning guidance—not legally obligatory—proposed by a UK agency when it thinks about what this rule should mean. The lesson I conclude from this is that a lot more of what we do lies in our own hands than we sometimes admit. Speaking as a former Minister, maybe we sometimes use the European Union as an alibi when it is a matter of domestic responsibility for domestic policy and domestic legislation. Britain is indeed a proud and self-confident country and we often still have the capacity to make our own decisions. We should celebrate that power and I do not believe our membership of the European Union is a significant threat to it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Would the noble Lord accept that only about 9% of our economy and 9% of our jobs come from sales and trade to clients in the European Union, and that that is declining in deficit? Would he agree that 11% of our economy goes to the rest of the world and that the remaining 80% stays in the British economy? Does he accept that the whole of that 100% is afflicted by EU regulation? Would he care to answer that?
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert of Panteg, on his maiden speech and in particular his stress on the cross-party nature of the campaign for the remain vote. I will return to that point.
I will now utter a phrase not often heard these days. The Liberal Democrats are fully behind the Government and support Mr Cameron to the hilt—rather more than some on his own Benches. That support includes the date of 23 June. The Prime Minister made an excellent start with a sparkling performance on “The Andrew Marr Show” and a combative presentation since. I particularly agree with his arguments about sovereignty needing to be pooled if it is to be real not illusory. That point was made by my noble friends Lord Ashdown and Lord Maclennan.
I am very glad that the Prime Minister stressed the value of the EU to UK security, an argument that the Liberal Democrats and many in this House had to fight hard on. I think of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Boswell, in that context. When the coalition had to decide on staying with the opt-in to policing and crime-fighting measures, there was quite a lot of heavy lifting so I am very pleased that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been persuaded there.
The Liberal Democrats, who are fully united as a party behind our 70-year history of support for Britain in Europe, believe passionately that remain is not only the rational and right thing to do but also the patriotic choice, playing to our strengths and multiplying our ability to promote our interests. As my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford said, leaving would take the great out of Britain.
I want to pay special tribute to Europe Minister, David Lidington, who is something of an unsung hero of the renegotiation exercise. He is intelligent, diplomatic and knowledgeable, and his six-year longevity in the post—a poisoned chalice, some would say; I have no idea whether he wanted to be there for that long—has been an asset given the relationships he must have built up with Ministers and officials across the EU. We saw a dividend of that on 19 February. I hope I have not just dealt a blow to his further career prospects. I particularly enjoyed his response to the Brexiters in the other place last week. He said:
“If the Prime Minister had come back from Brussels brandishing the severed heads of the members of the European Commission and proceeded to conduct an auto-da-fé in Downing Street of copies of the Lisbon treaty, they would still be saying, ‘This is feeble, insufficient, not enough’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/16; col. 564.]
He was absolutely right.
I heard the Foreign Secretary speak a little less colourfully this morning. While still describing himself as a Eurosceptic, he made a powerful case in presenting the document published today for how Brexit was a risky leap in the dark and that none of the potential alternatives was viable for Britain. Just today, the former Swiss President and, this evening, the current Norwegian Prime Minister advised against copying their countries’ relations with the EU.
We all wait—and still wait—for an honest portrayal by the leavers of what they propose instead of EU membership. We waited in vain during this debate as answer came there none. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, talked about a free trade agreement but as others—including the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Kerr, said—that is fundamentally different from access to the single market. Everybody sensible accepts that access to the single market comes at a price.
All out friends and allies, not only in the EU but also in the Commonwealth including Canada and Australia, in NATO—which, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said is made stronger by the UK’s membership of the European Union and those organisations being partners—and of course in the United States and, importantly, Ireland, urge us to stay in the EU. Can the leavers cite a single country or leader apart from Putin’s Russia that wants Brexit? The US trade representative has said that the United States is not interested in a trade deal with just the UK.
We know, of course, that the leavers are all over the place. Boris Johnson—true to form—could not stick to his suggestion of a second referendum for more than five days. And 13 days before his announced “decision” to back leave, he had been singing the praises of the European Union. Boris executes more U-turns than all the black cab drivers in London, who, by the way, are not among his fans.
We have also heard rather a lot of “porkies” from the leavers, I am afraid. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned the one about the habitats directive, which boils down to some non-statutory guidance from Natural England. Boris himself has cited the one about being stopped from having safer lorries that would be more visible to cyclists. He claimed that the French had blocked this measure. However, it passed into law with the agreement of the Council and the Parliament and will come into force in a few years’ time. When the measure was going through, Boris himself blamed the British Government for trying to block this proposal. So some correct facts would not go amiss, including on our budget contribution, where there have also been some wild claims. I commend the organisation infacts.org for picking up a lot of these mistakes.
My noble friend Lord Oates, who made an excellent speech, said that anyone would think that we had no friends. I am afraid that is the attitude of all too many of the leavers. I find a defeatist streak in them and a lack of faith in this country. The side that lacks confidence in the strengths of Great Britain is not the remain side: it is those who want to take their bat home. That quitting attitude undermines, and rats on, our friends. We should be a reliable partner, asking, in the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, not just what Europe can do for us but what we can do for Europe. That is the question Winston Churchill asked, who has already been invoked in this debate. I found an article that Edward Heath wrote 20 years ago, which stated:
“I readily accept that at that time”—
that is, the time of the Zurich speech in 1946; I was fascinated to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, say that he was present—
“Churchill did not envisage Britain being a full member of this united Europe”.
But Edward Heath added:
“This reluctance was based on circumstance; it was not opposition based on principle”.
Mr Heath went on to quote Churchill in the House of Commons debate on the Schuman Plan in June 1950, when Churchill asserted:
“The whole movement of the world is towards an inter-dependence of nations … If independent, individual sovereignty is sacrosanct and inviolable, how is it that we are all wedded to a world organisation?”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/1950; col. 2158.]
Apparently, in a letter to his constituency chairman in 1961, he said:
“I think the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community”.
One of the joys of the last week or so has been the tweets by Sir Nicholas Soames, who, of course, is the grandson of Churchill. I note that he retweeted a tweet by Charles Grant at the Centre for European Reform, which said:
“As Sir Nicholas Soames’ grandad might have said, the EU is the worst possible way of running relations among European states except for all the others”.
I think there are some things we can do, apart from expressing the remain arguments effectively, to make the British people feel more at ease in the European Union. One is to stop the amount of destabilising change and domestic reorganisation for its own sake in the NHS, local government and the legal system. I am not arguing for stasis when reform is needed, but changing the public and civic realm out of recognition, which has not happened in France or Germany, for instance, makes people nervous, uncertain, bewildered and even frightened, unsure of themselves and their identity, and, all too often, looking for someone or something to blame—and that scapegoat tends to be Europe. I also think that we should stop gold-plating European directives, as has been mentioned.
I make a plea to the Government to go easy on some provocative and partisan policies. I read in the Financial Times that the Prime Minister is advising the Chancellor to ditch his planned raid on pension tax relief because he wants to woo the voters. If the Government would like to do a bit of wooing of the opposition parties in order to create a good cross-party mood of co-operation for the remain campaign, that would not go amiss either. Perhaps the Government could look again at the Investigatory Powers Bill and whether it is a good idea to produce it three weeks after three critical parliamentary reports; at the forced sell-off of social housing; at the attack on Labour Party funding in the Trade Union Bill, which is divorced from a comprehensive reform of party funding; and at slashing the Short money for opposition parties to do their work of holding the Government to account. Perhaps the Government might have a rethink on these policies.
I conclude by hoping that after a remain vote, the Government will pursue multilateral reform inside the EU, working with like-minded partners in a sensible, pragmatic, British way. This was the strategy in coalition of Ministers such as Edward Davey and it must be renewed. That valuable exercise, the balance of competences review, is an excellent basis for doing so. Perhaps then we can get away from using the phrase “Britain’s relationship with Europe”, as the BBC so often does, and remember that if we really want to play a leading role in the EU we have to start by embracing the fact that we do indeed belong to the EU.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, after just over six hours of debate, I think we have seen your Lordships’ House at its best. Perhaps unusually for a debate of this length in this House, as the evening has drawn on, the speeches have got livelier, there have been more interventions and the debate has been reinvigorated. In a previous debate on this issue, I predicted that in the campaign leading up to the referendum we would have some really excellent debates and fact-based communications to inform and enlighten the electorate. I think we have seen that today in this debate and we are privileged in this House to have the benefit of the expertise of noble Lords who speak from experience as well as conviction.
We have heard from noble Lords who have represented us in the European Parliament, those who have worked in Europe and the EU, and those who have been engaged in and held positions in Europe-wide organisations. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who had an important diplomatic position in Europe. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Mandelson, a former Trade Commissioner. That contribution was invaluable and struck a chord with what I thought was an excellent speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Although the noble and gallant Lord was talking about security implications and my noble friend Lord Mandelson was talking about trade, they both addressed the issue that has been raised by some, that somehow we lose power and sovereignty by being part of the EU. Both of them, in the respective cases they identified from their experience, provided evidence that in the world of today we actually gain strength, power and influence by being engaged in the EU.
I praise the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert of Panteg, for an excellent maiden speech. He made a very eloquent and positive case for the EU. But I was also impressed that he made an eloquent and positive case for political engagement. In this day and age, when politicians are often criticised, those were important remarks to make in a maiden speech. I look forward to his future contributions.
When I predicted an intelligent and informed debate, I also predicted that we would hear nonsense, scaremongering and bad temper along the way. But when I predicted such acrimony, I did not expect it to start with the Cabinet or to start so soon. I find it a bit rich for Iain Duncan Smith to tell us that we are more likely to see Paris-style terrorist atrocities if we remain in and for the leave campaign to then accuse others of fear tactics. This is the most important national debate for a generation. The decision taken by our citizens across the UK will not just have a profound effect on our relationship with other EU countries but will strike at the heart of our place in the world. There will be real, lasting and, in cases, dramatic impacts on individuals and communities.
What is clear—and those of us campaigning to remain have a duty to point this out—is that a vote to leave is exactly what it says on the tin. It will trigger the process towards Article 50, which provides for exit, and it will do so straightaway—no ifs, no buts, as the Prime Minister is known to say. It is complex, it is difficult, and there are no guarantees that replacements for all the agreements from which we in the UK benefit could be in place in the two-year negotiating period—or it could be longer, in which case we would be in an even worse position. I appreciate that some noble Lords say that this can be done; perhaps it is possible. But for those who value those protections, “possible” and “perhaps” are not enough. There is a duty to be very clear about the risk.
The Labour Party is very clear about why we believe that it is in the interests of the UK and our citizens to remain. My noble friend Lady Morgan clearly identified so many of those issues, as did other noble Lords. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Young speak from her experience, when she raised those environmental issues and how valuable EU regulations have been in protecting our citizens. She asked whether there was a sensible Johnson; we could argue that there are two because we also have Alan Johnson leading the Labour campaign to remain. Insightful perspectives were offered by my noble friend Lord Soley and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Jopling. They set this debate in a wider context, with a wider perspective.
My noble friend Lord Radice said that the Prime Minister has to rise above party politics and I think that he is right, because the Prime Minister has to recognise the importance of attracting allies from outside his own ranks—indeed, he needs to. The noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches raised one example a moment ago. There is another example: the trade unions are among the strongest supporters of the investment, the jobs, the trade, and the benefits for working people that are guaranteed by the EU. Surely the Prime Minister should think long and hard about the Trade Union Bill. Through that Bill, Mr Cameron is determined to make their work more difficult by making it harder for them to raise funds to campaign and harder to support the Labour Party. That does not seem a great negotiating strategy. At times, I have found the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy quite baffling. He has to recognise that, far too often, it has been focused on trying to resolve the problems within his own party—and he was never going to be on to a winner there.
Chris Grayling let the cat out of the bag when he declared:
“Many of us made our minds up weeks ago, but we did the right thing and let the Prime Minister continue his negotiations”.
Clearly, they were not waiting with bated breath for the Prime Minister to come back from Brussels with the deal before they decided how they would vote. Let us be clear: nothing would have satisfied them. But negotiation within the EU is not a one-off, once-in-a-generation debate like a referendum. As noble Lords have said in this debate, it is an ongoing process. The reasons we should remain in the EU are so much deeper than just one negotiation and the Prime Minister’s deal. It is of course about trade, investment and jobs. It is also about standards, protecting our environment, ensuring that customers are not ripped off with dodgy goods, and about support and protection for workers across the EU, so that one country is not pitted against another in a race to the bottom.
These are real issues; they mean something to people and they impact directly on lives. It is about vision. That is where—my noble friend Lord Foulkes made this point—although we all want to remain in the EU, we see things a bit differently from the Prime Minister. In his 2013 speech, when he set out his vision of our relationship with Europe, he said:
“But today the main, over-riding purpose of the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity”.
But it is also to secure peace. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a similar point—probably more powerfully than I will be able to—that the vision of Europe, standing together for peace, protecting its citizens, and fighting crime and terrorism is as important now as it ever was. The threats and challenges that we face today are almost unrecognisable from the days after the Second World War or during the Cold War—but they are no less real.
It is not just the threat of terrorism, from whatever source, but serious and organised crime that threatens the very fabric of society: people trafficking, fraud, cybercrime, child abuse, including pornography and paedophilia, drugs and money laundering cannot be tackled within our shores alone. We need not just co-operation but shared intelligence, joint operations and joint working if we are to have any impact on bringing those criminals to justice.
If I ever had any doubts about our voting to remain, the debates that we had here in your Lordships’ House on the coalition Government’s bizarre charade of the opt out then opt back in again on EU police and criminal justice measures were enough to convince me. There are many noble Lords here tonight who took part in those debates. The 2010 Conservative manifesto made these issues one of the key areas in which we would distance ourselves from the EU and have a “repatriation of powers”. It was the political equivalent of the magician’s card trick—a complete illusion. The reality was never going to live up to the rhetoric, fortunately. The clear impression was given that we were to free ourselves from the shackles of Europe, withdraw from the European arrest warrant and reinstate good old British policing. But the days of “Dixon of Dock Green” have passed. We had a bizarre hokey-cokey of opting out of all the measures and then opting back in again.
So what did we opt out of that gave us that great repatriation of powers? Ministers were never able to explain, or admit, whether any of the measures that we opted out of had any impact or were even in use in, or applied to, the UK. They included a directory of specialist counterterrorism officers that did not actually exist. We opted out of a temporary system for dealing with counterfeit documents, which had already been replaced, and out of a bundle of measures relating to Portugal, Spain and Croatia that did not even apply to us. It was a fallacy. What is important on that point is that, despite the rhetoric and the overblown claims of getting rid of the European arrest warrant, Ministers soon recognised that this could only ever be a vanity exercise. We needed those EU powers and regulations. It was in our interests and in the interests of our citizens. We were unable to fulfil our obligations to our citizens in terms of safety and security without them. Even the head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, has expressed his fear for our capacity to fight crime and terrorism from outside the EU.
It is as my noble friend Lady Morgan said: after the sniping and criticism, you have to step back from the rhetoric and politics to deal with the real issues at stake. That is why this campaign needs good judgment and hard facts. While many are clear about how they will vote, many more are still considering their position. They may not be obsessed with these issues, or even engaged at all with them, but throughout their lives they want what is best for their families, their communities and their businesses. They are listening to the debate, reading the information and coming to their own decisions.
A vote to remain does not need an absolute conviction that the EU is perfect in every way—we all know that it is not. But it is perfectly logical, reasonable and sensible to have criticisms or concerns about the EU and, at the same time, hold the balanced view that it is in our interests to remain and vote yes. It is perfectly logical, reasonable and sensible to want to vote remain and want change. The point has been made already that the EU needs to reform and that reform can be made only from within. Yet if we vote to leave, decision-making will continue during that minimum two-year negotiating period. It is hard to believe that anyone would take us seriously at all in making those decisions. Even after those two years, or longer, once we were no longer part of the EU our businesses would obviously want to continue to trade with EU countries. They would still have to abide by those regulations in doing business but we would have abdicated any responsibility to them in helping to shape those regulations. Our consumers buying goods from outside the EU would no longer have the quality, safety and environmental protections that they have now.
Those who campaign to leave have to offer something more than motherhood and apple pie, or “It’ll be all right on the night”. This is deadly serious. It must not descend into a campaign about who can shout the loudest, get the most celebrities or frighten the most voters. We have had a valuable debate today, which is a credit to your Lordships’ House. I hope that it informs the debate. We have no objection to the SI. We look forward to the referendum and we shall be campaigning to stay in.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a historic debate. The House has well and truly put its stamp on this very important issue. Many have spoken with personal experience. Sometimes there has been an acknowledgement that there is a visceral element to the reaction that many people have to this issue, as there will be throughout the country. So many points have been made that I hope noble Lords will not be too disappointed if I confine my remarks to rather few of the issues raised during the debate.
Unfortunately, being a late arrival to the debate, I was unable to be here during the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Gilbert of Panteg. My late inclusion was because of the acute discomfort that my noble friend Lady Anelay was in. I salute her tenacity throughout the whole business of the European Union Referendum Bill and her dedication to bringing matters to the House’s attention. But I have it on the highest authority that he made an excellent maiden speech, and we very much welcome him to the House and look forward to his future contributions.
My task in winding up this debate has been made easier by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made many of the points that I might have made in winding up, and rather better than I would have done. I can deal with the date quite briefly, in view of the widespread acceptance of the SI. The Prime Minister has announced his intention to hold the referendum on 23 June, and my noble friend Lady Anelay explained why the Government believe that that date strikes the right balance between giving enough time for a proper debate and not making voters wait too long to have their say. There will be four months from the announcement of the date until polling day, six weeks for campaigners to apply to be designated, and a 10-week regulated referendum period. We believe that that is ample time. Traditionally, general elections have only six weeks’ notice; this referendum will have had much more. The intention to hold a referendum before the end of 2017 was announced in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech of 2013; it was affirmed at the election last year and reaffirmed by the passing of the referendum Act in December. No one can claim that they were not given sufficient notice.
Most importantly, the Electoral Commission has confirmed that it is content with the Government’s proposals and that, in its view, arrangements for a well-run referendum are “well advanced” and that the date does not pose a “significant risk”. It was only the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who suggested a different date; he suggested that the Government should wait until after the Tory Party conference, an invitation that the Government have no difficulty in refusing. The approval of the procedure has been echoed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; both have considered the instrument and both are content with the proposals.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The noble Lord has suggested that the Electoral Commission is content—maybe it is—but has it offered a view on the character, integrity and neutrality of the various so-called information documents that the Government have been pouring forth? It might be that it would consider that those documents are not in fact as neutral as they ought to be.
Lord Faulks
I am unaware of any view having been expressed about those documents but, since the noble Lord asks about those documents, which have been variously described as “propaganda”, they are the Government’s attempt to make their case and to make it clearly—The Best of Both Worlds, as the Government see it. We look forward to those who wish to leave the European Union putting forward their views in writing so that they can be scrutinised and dismissed as propaganda if they must be. But rather, I would suggest, a proper analysis of views on one side and another should be undertaken.
I turn to the deal—the EU renegotiation. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Ridley that this is a question of a relationship not with Europe but with the EU. There have been a range of opinions. The special status that the renegotiation has delivered means that Britain can, as the pamphlet suggests, have the best of both worlds. We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us, influence the decisions that affect our economy and help to keep our people safe. We will be in the driving seat of the world’s biggest single market, but we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us—the euro, the eurozone bailouts and the passport-free, no-borders Schengen area—and we will be permanently and legally protected from being drawn into ever-closer union.
The deal has achieved agreements in each of the four areas that were set out by the Prime Minister in his letter to Council President Tusk in November last year. On sovereignty, the deal ensures that the UK is out of ever-closer union, will never be part of a superstate, and has achieved new powers to block unwanted European laws. On competitiveness, the deal secures new commitments from the EU to cut red tape, complete the single market and sign new trade deals. On economic governance, we have made sure we will never join the euro, that British taxpayers will never be required to bail out the eurozone and that British businesses cannot be discriminated against for not being in the eurozone. On welfare and migration, we have made sure that new arrivals from the EU will not be able to get access to full benefits for four years and that child benefit will no longer be sent home at UK rates.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, suggested that this might not reduce the flow of EU migrants. The new relationship means that EU migrants can no longer claim full benefits for some time, and this ends what has been characterised as something-for-nothing welfare arrangements. The Government are not making a forecast of numbers, but we know that around 40% of EU migrants are supported by the benefits system, so reducing this artificial draw will, the Government believe, help us control and reduce immigration from Europe.
The legal nature of this deal has been called into doubt by some, but let me be clear: this deal is legally binding for all EU member states and the decision of the heads of state or government has now been registered with the United Nations as an international treaty. The conclusions of the February European Council as well as the text of the deal itself clearly set out the legally binding nature of the deal, and the European Court of Justice has held that decisions of this sort must be taken into consideration as being an instrument for the interpretation of the EU treaties.
Council President Tusk was clear that:
“The 28 Heads of State or Government unanimously agreed and adopted a legally binding and irreversible settlement for the United Kingdom in the EU. The decision concerning a new settlement is in conformity with the Treaties and cannot be annulled by the European Court of Justice.”
The legal opinions of both the Council Legal Service and Sir Alan Dashwood QC further confirm the legally binding nature of the deal. All those documents are footnoted in the document described as propaganda by those who oppose this process.
My noble friend Lord Astor asked whether the European Parliament could veto elements of the deal after a remain vote. Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, has said that he absolutely rejects the notion that MEPs have a veto and has given a guarantee that the European Parliament will, immediately after the referendum to stay in Europe, legislate on the proposal of the Commission. Manfred Weber, the leader of the centre-right EPP, the biggest block in the European Parliament, has said that with strong backing from EU member states and parliamentary leaders a UK package,
“could go through very quickly after the referendum. One or two or three months is possible”.
So we are confident that we can get the changes we need written into EU law.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Perhaps the Conservatives might join this group. It might be more expeditious.
Lord Faulks
I am sure they will be grateful for that suggestion.
The position is that this is a legally binding agreement. Of course all countries have evinced a clear agreement to be bound by the terms. The European Court of Justice cannot be bound by the agreement itself—it is a final court determining the validity of an agreement—but it is not realistic to expect that it will in any way go against what is a clear agreement in international law entered into by all members of the European Union.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will my noble friend explain why the Lord Chancellor takes a different view from him?
Lord Faulks
In an interview which I saw, the Lord Chancellor suggested that the European Court of Justice—or the CJEU, as it now prefers to be called—is the supreme court in Europe and is above all European institutions in interpreting the law. That is entirely a correct statement of the position. If he suggested—and I am not sure whether he did or did not because it seemed to me that he and the Prime Minister might have been talking about rather different things—that the treaty was not binding on the European Court of Justice, he was right to the extent that it is open to the European Court of Justice to decide that its jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the treaties only. It is highly unlikely that they would do so—highly unlikely because there is a clear agreement evinced by the 28 countries, the members of the European Union. No self-respecting court that had any say for its own reputation would do violence to that agreement.
Lord Howard of Lympne
Is it not the case, however, that although all courts these days are unpredictable, the European Court of Justice is more unpredictable than most? Unless and until a case came before the European Court of Justice, we simply do not know what their decision will be.
Lord Faulks
Some courts are more predictable than others, but the confident assertion from all legal advisers whose opinion I have read is that, for example, were there to be an argument to the effect that our changes to migration arrangements were somehow contrary to the principle of free movement, there is no way that the European Court would say, “Well, the treaty has freedom of movement, but all the member states have agreed to the contrary that there should be this arrangement for the United Kingdom”. I simply cannot believe that it is arguable that there would be any other conclusion than that there was honouring of the agreement.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, could the Minister confirm what I believe to be the case, and stated when I addressed the House earlier: that in the cases of Denmark and Ireland, where postdated commitments were entered into for treaty change, which took quite a few years to fulfil, there was no evidence and no case in which the European Court of Justice sought to tamper with those agreements? That is rather more important than endless speculation about what it might do.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is quite right. Those are substantial precedents and a clear indication of what might happen—as he quite rightly said, in invoking the Latin maxim pacta sunt servanda.
Lord Spicer
Can my noble friend think of an example where the European Court has intervened and where it has not done so in favour of an integrationist centralist Europe, according to the acquis communautaire?
Lord Faulks
With great respect to my noble friend, I am not sure that going over the entire jurisprudence of the European court would help, either at this time of night or at all, in terms of answering this fundamental question. We, the Government, submit that the answer is clear: this is a binding agreement.
May I also advance the argument that we are better off in the EU? The Government believe that the UK will be better off. The Government’s long-term economic plan is delivering economic security for families and businesses, underpinned by sound public finances. We plan to do this by investing in the UK’s future, addressing the productivity challenge and rebalancing the economy towards trade and investment. With turbulence in the global economy, membership of the EU supports this plan by giving British business access to the free-trade single market, and dozens of trade deals across the world.
Through our EU membership, we already have trading agreements with more than 50 countries. Concluding all the trade deals currently under way could ultimately be worth more than £20 billion a year to the United Kingdom GDP. Once these deals are completed, around three-quarters of UK exports to non-EU countries would be covered by an EU-negotiated free-trade agreement. Of course, we could make other deals—whether we could make them on better terms must be seriously in doubt. This Government’s deal keeps the EU moving firmly in the right direction and hard-wires competitiveness.
Would we be safer in the EU? The Government believe that we would. Our EU membership allows the UK to work closely with other countries to fight cross-border crime and terrorism, giving us strength in numbers in a dangerous world. Our new settlement reiterates that the responsibility for national security rests solely with national Governments and that EU institutions will fully respect the national security interests of member states.
The Government believe that the UK will be stronger in the EU because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within, helping to make the big decisions that affect us. Membership of the EU, like our membership of NATO and the UN, amplifies the UK’s power and influence on the world stage. At a time when we are, as many noble Lords have pointed out, faced with an increasing range of serious threats, co-operation at an international level is more important than ever.
This is a significant package of measures, delivering changes that are substantial, legally binding and irreversible in the sense that they can be changed only if all 28 member states agree. Of course it will not solve all the problems with the EU. In that sense, it should be seen as an important step on the road to EU reform —a point made by my noble friend Lord Howell, in his thoughtful speech—rather than the destination.
As to leaving the EU, noble Lords will be aware of the discussion elsewhere about a vote to leave being a means of securing further concessions in the renegotiation process, ahead of a second vote. That appears to have been briefly the view of the Mayor of London and is still the view of Mr Dominic Cummings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, asked if there was any contingency planning for Brexit. The Civil Service is working full-time to support the Government’s position, and the Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU. I want to be very clear on behalf of the Government: a vote to leave is exactly that—a vote to leave. The Government cannot ignore the democratic decision that will be made on 23 June; there is no option on the ballot paper to have a second renegotiation or to hold a second referendum. The Prime Minister has been explicit that a vote to leave would trigger Article 50 of the treaty. It would begin the process of a British exit from the EU.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
On the point that the Minister has just made, it is not a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether Article 50 is invoked in the event of a referendum for leaving; it is a matter for Cabinet. The Cabinet will have to have before it papers setting out all the various options, and it will be for Cabinet to decide which of those options it wants to pick up.
Lord Faulks
Whatever the process, it is clear that Article 50 will have to be adopted. The EU treaties, which the UK is signed up to, set out a legal process for EU member states to leave. My noble friend Lord Lawson suggests that we can simply ignore that process by repealing domestic legislation in the form of the European Communities Act, which is the piece of legislation that incorporated the treaty into our domestic law, but if we simply did that and ignored the UK’s international obligations, we would be violating the rule of law. It would hardly be a good way to begin a negotiation with 27 other member states to get a good deal for Britain by breaking international law.
The public would expect that if we were to leave, we would do so, as we have traditionally done, in accordance with the law and following the terms of the treaties. A vote to leave would start the clock on a two-year period to negotiate the arrangements for the UK’s exit. I should also be clear about what would happen if that deal to leave was not done within two years. Our current access to the single market would cease immediately after two years and our current trade agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse.
The Government have made our position clear: the UK’s national interest—the interests of every individual, family, business, community and nation within our United Kingdom—will be best served by our country remaining part of a reformed EU. There was almost total agreement across the House today that we should let the British people have their say on 23 June. Clearly, then, there is no reason to wait. Let us give each side time to make their case, then let us put the question to the British people. Let us settle this issue for a generation, and let us vote to remain.
There is a Motion to approve the statutory instrument before the whole House. I beg to move.
European Union: United Kingdom Membership
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s policy paper The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union presented to Parliament pursuant to section 6 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.