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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) cares deeply about Kashmir and has visited the region. I am concerned by recent events in Kashmir. I have in recent weeks met representatives from the Governments of both India and Pakistan and urged calm and restraint on both sides. I will continue to do so.
Jason McCartney
Has the Minister seen the reports of hundreds of Kashmiri protesters suffering eye injuries because of the indiscriminate use of pellet guns, and will he please speak out against it?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am of course concerned by those reports. He may also know that the use of pellet guns in Kashmir has come under review by the Government of India. The results of that review have not yet been shared publicly, but it has been indicated that alternative methods of crowd control will be introduced.
Kelvin Hopkins
The tragic recent history of Kashmir arose from the partition of India, which was managed by Britain after world war two. Does not Britain therefore have a special responsibility to help to find a solution to Kashmir’s troubles and the suffering of the Kashmiri people?
Alok Sharma
The UK of course has very good relations with both India and Pakistan, but our long-standing position, held by successive Governments of all hues, is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as mediator.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
There are no winners in Kashmir. The recent clashes have impacted on thousands of people and the economy is struggling, with over £1 million or 10,000 crore being lost in 100 days. A military solution is not working. I urge the Minister to encourage a political solution that involves not only India and Pakistan, but the Kashmiris themselves.
Alok Sharma
We should of course do all we can to promote trade and prosperity in the region, and that of course follows stability.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
As has been stated, in Kashmir we have seen more than 100 civilians killed, hundreds blinded and over 13,000 injured through the indiscriminate use of pellet guns against protesters. Will the Minister today condemn this shocking abuse of human rights? Does he not believe that we, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, have a responsibility to support and uphold UN resolution 47 and allow the sons and daughters of Kashmir their birth right to self-determination?
Alok Sharma
As I have noted, I am of course concerned by reports of the use of pellet guns, and of course any allegations of human rights abuses should be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Minister speak to officials at No. 10 and urge the Prime Minister to raise this issue during her forthcoming visit to India?
Alok Sharma
The UK of course shares a long-standing and deep friendship with India, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister has announced that she will visit India in November. The visit will be an important opportunity to discuss the full range of bilateral issues with Prime Minister Modi.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The previous Foreign Secretary said in March that the question of Kashmir should be a precondition for the resumption of talks between India and Pakistan. Since then, Kashmir has seen more than 100 days of unrest and the exchange of artillery fire between Pakistan and India. What specifically is the Foreign Secretary doing to bring about an end to the violence and to assist in the resumption of talks?
Alok Sharma
As I have said, of course we have very good relations with both India and Pakistan, including strong diaspora links. They are two proud nations. We encourage both countries to maintain good relations but, as I have noted, we recognise that the pace of progress is for both sides to determine.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
With both India and Pakistan facing immense issues in their own countries to sort out, one would have thought that there would be an appetite to resolve this issue. Why does the Minister think that actually that appetite does not seem to exist in either country?
Alok Sharma
This is of course a very important matter, and we raise these issues with both Governments. Ultimately, however, it is for both sides to progress the issue and determine the outcome.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
On behalf of the Opposition, I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks. The recent upsurge in violent clashes and terrorist attacks in Kashmir is deeply disturbing. We urge all sides to engage in dialogue, halt the cycle of violence and keep innocent civilians from harm. We have heard today about the use of pellet guns against protesters in Kashmir, which is totally unacceptable. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State urge the Indian authorities to make good on their commitment to stop the use of those weapons?
Alok Sharma
As I have noted on a number of occasions, the use of pellet guns in Kashmir has come under review by the Government of India, and our understanding is that alternative methods of crowd control will be introduced.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Of course it is right that the UK and the Russian Federation should continue to co-operate and to engage in all the areas where we have common interests, but in view of the ruthless and brutal behaviour of the Russians in Ukraine and in Syria, I hope the House will agree that it is right that the UK should be in the lead in keeping the pressure on sanctions, and it cannot be business as usual with Russia.
Chris Bryant
I agree. Putin’s behaviour has been despicable: murdering his own opponents—assassinating political opponents such as Boris Nemtsov—as well as the invasion of Georgia and Crimea, and now the despicable behaviour in Syria, where he tries to draw a moral equivalence between British and American bombing of military installations run by Daesh and Russia’s and Assad’s bombing of innocent civilians in hospitals in Aleppo. This is immoral. I am not sure that demonstrations outside the Russian embassy will make any odds, but what might make a difference is if we stopped Putin’s cronies coming to London. Why on earth do we still allow those who were involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky to come to this country? Will the Foreign Secretary go and demonstrate against the Home Secretary to make sure she changes the rules?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful for the question, because the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that there is no symmetry whatever between the actions of the Russians and the Assad regime, and the Americans and others on the other side. Just in the last 11 months, Russian bombing alone has been responsible for the deaths of 3,189 civilians, of whom 763 were children. In those circumstances, it is absolutely right that we should be keeping up the sanctions regime not just on Russia but on key members—key associates—of the Putin regime.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the particularly vile activities, which he has so eloquently described, of Russia in Syria have been allowed to happen because of several years of weakness and inconsistency in western policy towards that area? Does he further agree that if we want to hold the ring, the importance of being seen to be absolutely solidly behind NATO has never been stronger?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right to say that the vacuum left by the decision of, I am afraid, this House and, indeed, the Obama Administration in 2013 not to oppose the Assad regime has allowed the Russians to move into that space. It is vital that we keep up the pressure not just with sanctions but with the threat of justice in the International Criminal Court.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is it not unfortunate that, in Russia itself, print and social media are being gagged? Hence the reason I have little sympathy for the complaints made today by Russia Today, which is undoubtedly a form of propaganda constantly used by Putin and his gang. What is now happening as far as the media are concerned is surely the same as happened under communism and, before that, tsarism: repression at home, and hostility and aggression abroad.
Boris Johnson
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I noted the decision of NatWest bank to withdraw support for RT. That was a wholly independently taken decision, I wish to assure the House, in spite of what we may have heard this morning from Moscow. One of the things we are doing to promote free and fair information in Russia is, of course, to support the BBC World Service.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Oleg Sentsov is a Ukrainian film maker imprisoned for 20 years in Russia for his pro-Ukrainian views. Will the Government send a strong message to the Russian Government condemning Sentsov’s imprisonment and demanding his immediate release?
Boris Johnson
We are indeed concerned by the number of Ukrainian nationals who have voiced their opposition to what has happened—the illegal annexation of Crimea—and who face lengthy jail sentences, including Mr Sentsov and Mr Oleksandr Kolchenko. We are appealing to the Russian authorities to release them immediately.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Last March, President Putin was praised for his ruthless clarity in retaking Palmyra. By August, the Foreign Secretary had said that he wanted to normalise relationships with Russia, and last week he called for the people to demonstrate outside the Russian embassy in London. Where is the political consistency, and how does this approach build trust in the diplomatic community?
Boris Johnson
I think the House will have heard very clearly that on matters where we can co-operate with Russia it is absolutely vital that we do so. On the point about demonstrations outside the Russian embassy, I merely draw attention to the paradox and the peculiarity that the Stop the War Coalition has never seen fit to demonstrate against the barbarism taking place in Aleppo.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to welcome the visit this week of Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who is meeting the Queen? I know a bit about Russian Orthodoxy, having been married within the Church. The Russian Orthodox Church has suffered appallingly, particularly in Soviet times, but it is growing now. This is an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to make it clear that whatever our differences with the Russian Government at the moment, we have absolutely nothing but support for the Russian people and her faith, and their perseverance in times of trial.
Boris Johnson
I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is important that we keep open all lines of communication. Archbishop Kirill may have some interesting points to make. It would be even more important if he took back a message from the UK that we do not tolerate what is happening in Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, and, above all, in Syria. I hope that his visit will be a factor for change in the Kremlin.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Since becoming Foreign Secretary, I have engaged with many of my counterparts across Europe and beyond, including partners as far afield as Turkey and Japan. Those discussions have of course touched on the outcome of the referendum and the Government’s plans to enact the result.
Lucy Allan
My right hon. Friend kindly visited my constituency last year, so he will know that there are many Japanese employers in Telford. Will he please tell the House what assurances he has given to his Japanese counterpart that post-Brexit global Britain is still a great place to do business?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend will know that since the referendum result there has been a £24 billion investment from Japan in this country from SoftBank alone, and Japanese investment continues to come into this country. I think that all Japanese investors, and indeed investors around the world, can be secure in the knowledge that we will get the best possible deal for goods and services that will allow their companies to flourish and to prosper in this country as never before.
Chris Law
The Secretary of State will be aware that the timetable for leaving is triggering instability and uncertainty in the economy, so much so that the Cabinet is considering spending billions to keep single market access for the City of London. What is the timetable for the same support to be applied to Scotland, where 62% of us voted to remain?
Boris Johnson
The people of Scotland obviously had a referendum in 2014 and voted convincingly to remain in the United Kingdom. This was a United Kingdom decision. We will continue the negotiations as a United Kingdom, and we will get a fantastic deal for this country and a strong deal for the EU—both a strong UK and a strong EU.
Alberto Costa
The Honourable Luigi Di Maio, the deputy speaker of the Italian chamber of deputies, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I met three weeks ago, confirmed in yesterday’s edition of The Times that Britain should retain access to the single market and control its migrants. Will the Foreign Secretary reciprocate by confirming on Italian media the welcome comments made by the Honourable Luigi Di Maio? Will he also confirm that Italians continue to be welcome across the United Kingdom?
Boris Johnson
I am sorry—forgive me.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I think that Rai TV has been requesting an interview with me for some time on this matter, and that is the most ingenious interview application I have yet heard. I will certainly do what I can to assist. Italians and all nationals from EU member states can have the assurance that their status here will of course be protected, provided that there is symmetry and reciprocity on the other side.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
When the Secretary of State met John Kerry recently, did he have the opportunity to discuss the American chamber of commerce report, which will apparently land in the Cabinet Office this week and which warns that American companies with $600 billion-worth of investment in Britain are currently reviewing the situation because of uncertainty about our future unfettered access to the single market? Next time the Brexit Sub-Committee of the Cabinet meets, will the Secretary of State support the Chancellor in standing up to the hard Brexiteers, who seem to want to do such untold damage to our economy?
Boris Johnson
I have not yet seen the American chamber of commerce report because, by the right hon. Gentleman’s own account, it has not yet been published. I have no doubt that American companies, in common with all companies around the world outside the UK and the EU, will find the UK in future an even better place to invest in and to bring their corporations to, because of the natural advantages of time zone, language and skills that this country enjoys.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Given that the 170-odd countries outside the EU successfully trade with it—some have trade deals and some do not—what does the Secretary of State have to say to those pessimists and remoaners who continue to believe that we, with the fifth largest economy in the world, cannot thrive outside the EU, particularly given his additional list of suggestions and the fact that business costs are relative and it costs a lot more to do business on the continent?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I deprecate the terms “pessimists”, “gloomadon-poppers” and “remoaners”. We are all in this together and everybody wants to make a great success of Brexit. I have no doubt at all that this country will be able to do a fantastic deal with our friends and partners in the European Union, and simultaneously become even more attractive to investors from around the world, with a new series of stunning free trade agreements.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
How does the Foreign Secretary explain to his counterparts his support for Turkey’s accession to the European Union, since that was used by the Brexiteers as a reason for getting the UK out? Did he campaign for Turkey’s accession in order to get the UK out, or did he campaign for the UK to get out in order to support Turkey’s accession?
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because we had a debate on this very subject during the course of the referendum campaign, that I am a passionate advocate of Turkish membership of the EU, if that is indeed what the Turks want—sometimes they seem to change their minds these days—always provided that the UK has left before that day.
Alex Salmond
I have here an article written by the Foreign Secretary—I think there is only one of this one—in which he argues, immediately after the referendum campaign, for full participation in the single marketplace. If it was okay for the leader of the Brexiteers to argue for full participation in the single marketplace after the referendum, why is it not okay for people on this side of the House to try to force that issue to a vote in the House of Commons?
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman will know full well that it is completely unrealistic to expect the Government to put their negotiating position to a vote in this House before those negotiations are concluded. That has never happened before. I remember all sorts of negotiations on Maastricht and other European treaties, and they were never put to this House before they were concluded, as he knows full well.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
There has been reference to the draft newspaper column in favour of remain that the Secretary of State wrote in February. He wrote:
“This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms…Why are we so determined to turn our back on it?”
The argument he made back then is exactly why we on this side of the House are so concerned about a hard Brexit that would put our access to the market at risk and risk the jobs of British people. Why does the Secretary of State no longer agree with himself?
Boris Johnson
Most people will understand that the arguments have moved on and that the people have spoken overwhelmingly. Indeed, one of the most powerful cases that could possibly have been made for leave was to be found in the article that I wrote for remain. Everybody who has read it has told me that they emerged from it feeling a profound sense of obligation to leave the European Union, and they were quite right. That analysis, I am afraid, is absolutely justified and I am delighted that the people voted accordingly.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
We support the UN’s response to the Syria crisis and its regional impact. We have allocated £1.1 billion to Syria’s neighbours to help them to meet their humanitarian obligations, while maintaining border security. We work closely with them to provide humanitarian aid, as well as job and education opportunities for refugees.
Thangam Debbonaire
An estimated 75,000 to 100,000 refugees, mostly women and children, are trapped without food and with little aid in the Berm, an area of no man’s land on the Syrian-Jordanian border. Given that Jordan already has thousands of refugees, if the next military target is to be Raqqa, the capital of ISIS, with an inevitable further flow of refugees towards the Jordanian border, what will the Foreign Secretary do to assist Jordan now and in the future?
Boris Johnson
We are in regular contact with the Jordanian authorities to assist the humanitarian situation in the Berm. We are one of the biggest deliverers of aid to the area. In recent months we have had meetings on several occasions with the Government of Jordan to try to address growing concerns about conditions, and I know that the Prime Minister has raised that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
One of the many barriers to creating safe routes out of Syria is the Syrian Government’s practice of declaring stolen passports belonging to those who oppose them. Will the Foreign Secretary, as a matter of some urgency, speak to his colleague the Home Secretary about the position of Zaina Erhaim, an award-winning Syrian journalist who recently had her passport confiscated as she came into Heathrow?
Boris Johnson
I am aware of the case. It is very difficult, because we must, in law, confiscate passports that have been stolen, but we are doing what we can to assist the lady in question.[Official Report, 8 November 2016, Vol. 616, c. 4MC.]
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for that update. As he knows, the United Nations envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has described the presence of some 1,000 jihadi fighters in eastern Aleppo as an “easy alibi” for the Russian and Syrian forces to justify their bombardment. Will the Secretary of State today support de Mistura’s proposals to offer the jihadi fighters some sort of passage out of the city so that they can be dealt with in an international criminal court?
Boris Johnson
The reality is that no such proposal can conceivably be made to work in the absence of a cessation of hostilities by the Russians and the Assad regime. That is the precondition. A durable and convincing ceasefire must be delivered by the Assad regime before any such proposal can conceivably be made to work.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I visited Mogadishu in August and was pleased to see that after decades of civil war and transitional governance, Somalia is now making significant and remarkable progress. However, security and governance need to improve, and al-Shabaab is far from defeated.
Sir Henry Bellingham
The Foreign Office deserves great credit for making us the only EU country to reopen its embassy in Mogadishu, as announced in the Anglo-Somali summit in February 2012 at Lancaster House. Does the Minister agree that now that al-Shabaab has been pushed out of Mogadishu and other cities such as Kismayo and Baidoa, it is essential that local government structures are built up so that communities can be properly represented? What is the Foreign Office doing to help that?
Mr Ellwood
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for organising, as former Africa Minister, the very conference that he mentioned on Somalia in 2012, which helped to galvanise international support for Somalia. He is absolutely right. We need to work on the governance structures, and a federated model has come to the fore. We need to support the AMISOM troops as well. There is much work to be done. Although al-Shabaab has been pushed out of the capital cities, it is still in the south of the country.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
While considering the security situation in Somalia, how does the Minister assess the role of Ethiopa, and what impact is the continued detention of British citizen Andy Tsege having on our relations with the Ethiopian regime?
Mr Ellwood
I am aware of the state of emergency that Ethiopia has introduced, and I will certainly look at the consular case that the hon. Gentleman raises and perhaps write to him with more details. However, I would pass on congratulations to Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and the other countries that are providing forces and making an important contribution to the support and stability of Somalia.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I met Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in New York on 21 September, which was two days after the bombing of the aid convoy, and we obviously focused on Syria in those discussions. As I have told the House already, I pressed him to do what I think the world wants Russia to do, which is to bring pressure to bear on the Assad regime to have a ceasefire.
Dr Huq
The Foreign Secretary may not be its biggest fan, but even the European Council yesterday found that Russia’s use of chemical weapons and its targeting of civilians are war crimes. Having now distanced himself from demos at the embassy, will he make sure that the UK leads in advocating UN veto restraint, because as long as Russia has such a “get out of jail free” card, resolutions will be ignored and an appalling situation will get worse?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Lady will be interested to know that at that European Council—I participated in it fully and, if I may say so, happily, because we are still fully paid-up members—the UK delegation introduced language specifically targeting Russia and took out language seeking to create a false equivalence between Russia and the US.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend remember that in 2005, Her Majesty’s Government, along with every other member of the General Assembly of the United Nations, signed up to the responsibility to protect? Having just voted to take back control in this country, is it not appalling that we are bowing down to a bully in the middle east who, instead of taking seriously their responsibility to protect, is brutalising and murdering millions of people in Syria?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend is quite right. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, the UK has been in the lead in the UN Security Council in bringing pressure to bear on Russia not just on its use of chemical weapons, but on its continuing refusal to get the Syrian regime to have a ceasefire. Furthermore, we are in the lead in trying to bring all responsible parties to the International Criminal Court.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
In response to this and other atrocities, the Foreign Secretary said in the Commons last week that “more kinetic options” should be considered, but then only the day before yesterday, emerging from his talks, he said there was little interest, to say the least. Please will he reassure the House that the UK will play its full role in urging other nations to accept that that may be the only way to make Russia back down?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I have to say that I admire his spirit and the urgency that he has brought to this debate. I think the mood is certainly changing in this country. I do not yet detect a sufficient appetite in the capitals of the west, and certainly not yet in the White House, for the kind of action that I think could be useful, but, as Secretary Kerry said, nothing is “off the table”.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Following the EU referendum result and the formation of the Department for International Trade, both the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Trade have been engaged in positioning us as a partner of choice for countries across Africa.
Chi Onwurah
As chair of the all-party group on Africa, I recently led a delegation to Namibia and South Africa to look at trade and economic development. There is huge concern there and across Africa about the impact of Brexit, particularly on the European economic partnership agreements that currently govern trade agreements. This is undermining developing economies. Will the Minister confirm that leaving the single market will mean abandoning these agreements, and will he estimate how long it will take to negotiate agreements with each of the 54 African countries?
Mr Ellwood
May I first pay tribute to the work the hon. Lady does on the all-party group on Africa, and indeed to the work of all such all-party groups and of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, many of whom are in the Chamber? That work reflects our desire to do more business post-Brexit. We are trusted, we are engaged and indeed we are committed to doing more in those countries, and South Africa is just one example of that. She raises the very important point that a number of countries have signed deals or are about to sign deals with the European Union on trade; some of them are now bowing out, saying, “Let’s wait to see what happens with Brexit.” It is important that we strike the necessary bilateral deals as we move forward.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
As well as encouraging trade with Africa, what can Her Majesty’s Government do to increase trade between African countries, particularly in the Great Lakes area?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to my predecessor as Minister for Africa for the superb work he did in pioneering and strengthening Britain’s relationship with this important continent. These countries want to do business with us: we want to do business with them. It is important that they are also encouraged to do business with each other. The Great Lakes is a great example of that—a massive infrastructure project is being carried out to get oil out of the country through a number of other countries. It will also assist countries such as South Sudan, which could do with the revenue. Britain can come forward with our expertise in that area.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It took the European Union 12 years to negotiate the economic partnership agreement between itself and Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland, which was finally signed in June. Will the UK Government seriously have to begin that process all over again?
Mr Ellwood
I suggest to the SNP that they understand where we are now. The result is there and Brexit is where we are—that has been made clear already. We now have an opportunity to embrace it and go to those countries and sign deals. That is where we should be, not looking through the small print to ask why we cannot do any of those things.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
From the Gambia to South Africa, the Commonwealth offers great potential for expanding trade with Africa. Will the Minister make sure that we make full use of those opportunities to secure trade deals and get exporting to those emerging economies?
Mr Ellwood
When trade opportunities arise, it is not simply just having companies that want to work there, it is also the element of trust that exists between the two nations. Our legacy, heritage and history—and the trust that exists—are exactly what we need to leverage, as well as the wonderful companies that we have to provide support across a wide range of sectors.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I met the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Dr Ibrahim al-Jaafari, last week here in London at the Iraq-UK bilateral forum. The Foreign Secretary and I met other Foreign and Defence Ministers at the Washington conference on defeating Daesh held in the summer.
Stephen Metcalfe
As my hon. Friend will know, the Kurdistan regional government has, for a long time, been short-changed—if not cut off completely—by the Government in Baghdad. Although there are some promising signs, Iraqi federalism needs to be genuine, with reliable revenue sharing. Will my hon. Friend convey that to his Iraqi counterparts and remind them of the contribution that the Kurds and the peshmerga are making in pushing back the advances of Daesh?
Mr Ellwood
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the incredible work and bravery of the peshmerga. They are one of the toughest fighting forces in Iraq, and it is important that they are working with the newly trained Iraqi forces in the liberation of the city of Mosul, which has now begun. He is also right to raise concerns about the relationship between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq. We have long maintained that it is important, and in our interests, to see a united Iraq, but recognising the federated models. It is in the constitution and, to that end, I was pleased that the bilateral forum that we had last week also included Falah Mustafa, the spokesman on foreign affairs for Kurdistan.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
When I visited Iraq earlier this year with the Defence Committee, it was clear that we were moving much more slowly politically than we were militarily. What support is the Minister providing to Iraqi politicians more broadly to help to keep up with the military solutions as we progress in Mosul?
Mr Ellwood
I welcome visits such as that conducted by the Defence Committee. The more engagement we have to see what is happening on the ground, the better we can understand the challenges that are faced. The hon. Lady is right to highlight one challenge that Iraq faces. As Daesh is pushed out of the country, more and more focus will be on the domestic matters that will then start to plague it. Sectarian tensions remain, the de-Ba’athification process still needs to come through, and we still need to look at counter-terrorism laws and accountability laws that must be pushed through. I can guarantee, however, that our embassy and our ambassador, Frank Baker, are doing excellent work to support the Government of Iraq.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I know the good work that Ambassador Frank Baker and his colleagues are doing in Baghdad and Erbil to make progress move along, and we should be very appreciative of their efforts.
On political developments in particular, what are the Minister’s observations on whether lessons have been learned on the issue of Sunni exclusion, which has so bedevilled political development in Iraq in recent years, and does he have greater hopes that the current Government will address that issue as the country moves forward?
Mr Ellwood
This is quite a collection, as my right hon. Friend is now the third former Minister for either the middle east or Africa whom I have addressed. It is an honour that they are here providing their wisdom to the Chamber—[Interruption.] I will watch my back.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the sectarian tensions I mentioned. We got it wrong, or rather Iraq got it wrong under the Malaki Government back in 2013. The absence of including Sunnis in Iraqi society led to the creation of the space for Daesh in the first place. The United Nations Development Programme and the Iraqi Government are working extremely hard to make sure that we get this right. The day after the guns fall silent in Mosul, what happens next? There must be a Sunni-led approach to ensuring that there is peace in Mosul.
Mr Speaker
No one can dispute the comprehensiveness of the Minister’s answers, for which we are grateful, but we do have time constraints.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) mentioned the Kurdistan Regional Government, and the Minister will be aware that the KRG is hosting not just hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria, but potentially 1 million internally displaced Iraqis. As they are not refugees, they do not receive the support or recognition that they need. If the conflict in Mosul leads to hundreds of thousands more refugees, will the Minister provide more support from our Government to the KRG?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman touches on a very serious matter that is challenging, to say the least. The UNDP recognises that once the liberation of Mosul takes place, refugees will flood out of the capital city in different directions, including into Kurdistan. When I visited, the camps were not in place. The refugees were in schools, preventing the beginning of the school curriculum in September. We pay tribute to the work of Kurdistan. Indeed, much in our DFID programmes has gone to support refugees in that part of Iraq.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The effort to free all areas of Iraq from Daesh control is fully supported on the Labour Benches. The ongoing effort to retake Mosul will play a vital role in that strategy. How does the Minister plan to ensure that the civilian population will be protected from the fighting and that civilians fleeing Mosul will receive the humanitarian help that they need?
Mr Ellwood
As I mentioned, the UNDP is co-ordinating all aspects of the UN. Working with the Iraqis, it is taking the lead on the stabilisation and reconstruction of the city. Prime Minister Abadi has made it clear that no peshmerga—no Kurdish forces—or Shi’ite mobilisation forces should enter the city. This is a predominantly Sunni city and it should be liberated initially by Sunni Iraqi forces. A civilian-trained police force will provide important security after that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I spoke to Dr Riad Hijab, the general co-ordinator of the Syrian High Negotiations Committee, on 6 October and again on 13 October. We discussed the importance of the Syrian opposition’s continued commitment to the political process.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What importance does my right hon. Friend attach to countries in the region in bringing together the Syrian opposition?
Boris Johnson
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. As the House may know, on 7 September we had a meeting in London, together with the High Negotiations Committee led by Dr Riad Hijab, of the interested parties in the region. He set out what I think was a very compelling case for a post-Assad Syria with a broad-based Government and pluralist democracy. I think they have a plan for 30% female representation in their politics, which is perhaps better even than the Labour party. He answers one of the key questions: is there a future for Syria after Assad? There most certainly is—and a great one, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am saving the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) up. I call Alison McGovern.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is not just the Syrian opposition but Syrian civil society and non-governmental organisations in this country who are calling for our Government to lead on a comprehensive strategy to protect civilians, including a no-bombing zone. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that our Government will now take a lead in considering this strategy?
Boris Johnson
I pay tribute to the forcefulness with which the hon. Lady has advocated this course. I must say that I wish that, three years ago, the then Labour Opposition had been as resolute in wishing to see that kind of engagement to protect the people of Syria. A critical decision was taken then, as the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) well remembers, which has made things much more difficult for us today. I want to see the will of this House clearly expressed in support of what the hon. Lady has said.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The fact of the matter is that with America increasingly absorbed by a sometimes surreal presidential election, France and Germany facing elections of their own next year, Secretary Kerry soon to leave office and a change of leadership at the UN, a degree of paralysis has entered into the negotiation process on Syria—
Mr Speaker
Order. I rather thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished. That was a fairly long inquiry, but if he has a short sentence, will he please blurt it out?
Boris Johnson
I thought my right hon. Friend’s question was excellent. It goes to the heart of what is happening at the moment. As I said earlier, the space vacated by western powers has been occupied, I am afraid, by the Russians. We need to do whatever we can now to put pressure on the Russians—through sanctions, through the threat of the International Criminal Court—[Interruption.] Indeed, and through measures such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggests from a sedentary position. These measures are already in place in this country.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that although many people in Syria and in the aid agencies can understand the sort of bombastic bluster that he is so good at, the fact is that serious diplomacy will require a calm, rational approach if we are to secure peace in Syria?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, alas, I think that what is really needed at this stage is a tough approach, because the primary cause of the suffering of the people of Aleppo is the Syrian regime. That is overwhelmingly responsible for the deaths of 400,000 people in the conflict so far. That regime is backed by its Russian puppeteers, and it would be a fatal mistake if we were now to lose sight of that priority, and to give up on applying the pressure that is needed on Russia and its Syrian clients.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The issuing of Italian passports is a matter for the Italian authorities. There have therefore been no discussions so far with the Italian embassy about the issuing of Italian passports to Italians.
Richard Fuller
Bedford is proudly home to a large multi-generational Italian community that has relied on our local honorary consul for the provision of their Italian passports. There has been a sustained and large increase in demand for Italian passports, and I am told that capacity at the Italian embassy is limited. Will the Minister please raise this issue with the ambassador?
Sir Alan Duncan
There are in the UK, and especially in Bedford, a number of British nationals who are eligible for an Italian passport and have recently applied for one. That is, as I said, a matter for the Italian Government, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I will raise the matter with them as appropriate.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Sir Alan Duncan
I think that the issue of the fate of such people is rather more serious than the tone adopted by the hon. Lady in the House today.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Foreign Secretary hosted a meeting on Yemen with key international partners and the UN envoy, Ismail Ahmed, on Sunday, when it was agreed that the UN would present a road map for a political settlement to both parties as soon as possible. The UK and the US have called for an immediate ceasefire on all sides.
Mr Speaker
I understand that this is being grouped, at the request of the Government, with Question 15.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Kelly Tolhurst
The Yemeni population continues to suffer from preventable military incidents carried out by both sides in the conflict, most recently at the funeral where 140 were killed and 500 injured. Given the Minister’s timely and important visit to Riyadh last week, what assessment was he able to make of the standard of the regional initiative seeking to address the high number of civilian casualties?
Mr Ellwood
This was a tragic event, and our sympathy and concern go out to all those affected by it. It was also a huge mistake, and it is important for Saudi Arabia to be able to investigate it properly. My purpose in travelling to Saudi Arabia was to enforce that message from the Prime Minister, and to say that we needed an accurate understanding and investigation of what had taken place. Saudi Arabia has already produced an initial document that shows that its hand is going up in recognition of a huge breach of standard operating procedures. According to that document, at least one individual will be charged, and there are now plans to provide humanitarian support for those who have been injured.
Catherine McKinnell
The scenes of destruction and starving children in Yemen put the international community to shame. Does the Minister agree that in no circumstances should British weapons be used to target civilians, and if so, what are the Government doing to prevent that from happening?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady has raised the important question of who is doing the bombing, what is actually happening, and how those responsible can be made accountable. There is no doubt that this is a very difficult war. One of my reasons for inviting the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, to the House yesterday to meet parliamentarians was to ensure that everyone here could put those very questions, and so that he could hear from our Parliament about concerns that have been expressed not just yesterday, or indeed today, but over a number of months. A coalition has been put together under United Nations resolution 2216 to support President Hadi. We must ensure that that war is legitimate, but let us not forget that the devastation has been caused by Houthis as well.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The whole House will welcome the announcement of a 72-hour ceasefire in Yemen, which will begin on Wednesday night. We share the hope of the United Nations that that can become the basis of a lasting peace, and that the children of Yemen can now receive the humanitarian relief that they so desperately need. However, as the Secretary of State observed in respect of Aleppo last week, and indeed today, the end of a conflict does not end the need to investigate possible violations of international humanitarian law. When can we expect full, independent, UN-led investigations of the thousands of airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady received her answer when she posed the very same question to the Foreign Minister yesterday. It is standard for any country engaged in warfare, when a mistake is made, to conduct its own investigation and produce a report. I have said in the Chamber that if I feel that that report—or any report—is undervalued and is somehow to be dismissed, I will certainly join the hon. Lady and others in saying that there should be an independent UN-led investigation. After I visited Saudi Arabia, however, we saw a report that made very clear exactly what had happened. I have encouraged people, as I did at yesterday’s meeting, to say that there are reports outstanding. There are not thousands, as the hon. Lady suggested—that is to mislead the House—but there are a number with which we are concerned that need to be clarified.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the word “inadvertent”, or the word “inadvertently”, was in there somewhere. One cannot accuse other Members of misleading the House.
We now come to topical questions. I remind the House that topical questions are supposed to be brief, and so are the answers.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
My priority for the rest of 2016 is to ensure that there is a robust and measured response to the crisis in Syria, while pressing home our campaign against Daesh and working alongside our allies to protect the rules-based international system against the ambitions of Russia, and to achieve an ambitious and outward-looking global Britain.
Natalie McGarry
Military action in Mosul could result in the displacement of 1 million civilians, and the International Committee of the Red Cross has claimed that it can provide for only 300,000 people, with the United Nations providing for 60,000 more. What provisions, measures and plans have been agreed to guarantee civilian safety, the security of food and water resources, and the prevention of a catastrophic humanitarian crisis?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
As I implied in my reply to an earlier question, it is important that we get what happens when the guns fall silent correct. We cannot afford to have a refugee crisis of the scale that has been suggested, which is why the international community has come together on several occasions, including at Washington DC—the Foreign Secretary and I attended—to ensure that we have the necessary measures in place to support those who are fleeing, that any chemical weapons attacks that might take place can be dealt with, and that there will be a form of processing so that we can capture people who have committed war crimes and put them on trial.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Turkish Government appreciated our early condemnation of the coup attempt of 15 July. We work very closely on migration, counter-terrorism and other matters, and I will be paying my second visit to Ankara later today.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The attempt by members of the former Libya Dawn Government to retake control of Tripoli is deeply worrying to all of us who want security and stability to return to Libya. Who does the Foreign Secretary believe is currently in charge in Libya, what is his strategy for achieving that security and stability, and who does he think is responsible for the mess Libya now finds itself in?
Mr Ellwood
I could speak for an hour on that last question and say how misleading—inadvertently misleading —it is. It does not help us to suggest that somehow what happened in 2011 is applicable to what is happening today. There was a Libyan Government, there was a Prime Minister and there were elections, and many of the international community were asked to leave in 2011-12. After 40 years of misrule under Gaddafi, society is now trying to develop, and that is the challenge we face today.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
My heart goes out to the families. I raised this case with Minister Akbar when I was in India in July, and I raised it again on 5 October with the Indian high commissioner to the UK. I know that my hon. Friend is working incredibly hard to highlight this issue and I look forward to meeting him and hon. Members representing the other families tomorrow.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Boris Johnson
I have set out our position on Mr Tsege in an open letter on gov.uk. I cannot, I am afraid, comment further, because our handling of this case is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Boris Johnson
The most important thing at this stage is that the UK is leading the way in accumulating evidence against those responsible for these crimes. It will be essential, ultimately, that we have good secure testimonials against those responsible and I have no doubt that in due course they will be useful. The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind small.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Mr Ellwood
The hon. and learned Lady raises an important aspect of what is a very complicated challenge in the middle east that has been rumbling on for far too long. I raised this issue with the Deputy Foreign Minister during my last visit. We have tried to get further access and further conditions put in place to make sure those child detainees are provided with the support they deserve.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Sir Alan Duncan
Yes, I am happy to confirm that. Indeed, the Government are building a much more constructive relationship with the Government of Argentina. During my visit to Buenos Aires, I agreed an historic joint statement that established closer co-operation across our bilateral relationship, which includes some important benefits for the Falkland Islands and for Argentina.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Boris Johnson
On the contrary, the meeting on Sunday was extremely successful in the sense that there was a unanimous agreement from all the parties concerned—not only France, Germany and Italy, but Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and ourselves—that we should proceed to put pressure on the Assad regime and its puppeteers in the form of the Russians on the basis that I have already outlined to the House: economically, diplomatically, through the United Nations and through the use of the International Criminal Court.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Mr Ellwood
I have had the opportunity to visit the DRC, a country that my hon. Friend knows extremely well. President Kabila is refusing to step back; he wants to continue after his two terms. We have made the case forcefully that he must honour the constitution and allow the democratic process to take place. It is a large country, with 80 million people, and if it goes back into a dark chapter, there will be consequences for the surrounding countries. We are in a very delicate place in the development of democracy in that country.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Boris Johnson
I have a constant exchange of views with my friends and colleagues from the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade. We are a nest of singing birds, Mr Speaker, as you can imagine. Things are working extremely well, which might come as a surprise to the hon. Lady, and I have no doubt whatever that we will do a fantastic deal in the interests of the UK and in the interests of a strong European Union.
Mr Speaker
I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman sing, but I feel sure that it would be melodic and that it is only a matter of time.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
In the light of the EU referendum, we have heard that there is lots of international interest in signing trade deals with the United Kingdom. What practical steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to contribute to the effort to ensure that we get those deals signed, sealed and delivered?
Boris Johnson
One of the most extraordinary things that I discovered on becoming Foreign Secretary was the full extent of the network that the UK has around the world. We have more coverage overseas than the French with only 70% of their budget. My experience of UK diplomats and trade officials is that they are superlatively well informed about the needs of UK business and industry, and that they will assist us in doing first-class free trade deals in every capital.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to Questions 1 and 12, is not the British Government uniquely placed to bring Pakistan and India together in some form of talks, particularly given the fact that tensions are probably higher than they have ever been and that we are dealing with two nuclear powers?
Alok Sharma
As I noted earlier, we have regular dialogues with the Indian and Pakistani Governments. I reiterate that, at the end of the day, it is up to the two countries to come together and to work on the pace of bilateral relations.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is not just the Foreign Secretary’s bank manager who will miss his many newspaper columns. Like the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), I read the one he wrote in The Daily Telegraph on 26 June in which he said that the only change that Brexit would make to our country would be that we would extricate ourselves from EU laws. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us today that he has not changed his mind again, and that he still believes that it is in our country’s interests to remain within the single market?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. I can tell her that my view remains absolutely crystal clear—adamantine—that we will be better off extricating ourselves from the toils of the EU legal system. As the Prime Minister rightly said, we are going to leave the penumbra of European legislation and that is the right thing to do for this country. We will go forward with a fantastic free trade deal in goods and services that will be good for this country and good for the EU.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Given the deteriorating security situation in and around Lashkar Gah, what lessons has the Foreign Secretary learned from the British deployment to Helmand?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work—he knows the country extremely well indeed. It is important that we provide support to Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah. Unfortunately, the Taliban have pushed back from the Pakistani border and until we get some sense of governance back into the capital city of Lashkar Gah, I am afraid that the Taliban will continue to push towards Kandahar.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Following the Government-commissioned study into the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory, when do Ministers envisage making a decision on the resettlement of the Chagos islanders?
Sir Alan Duncan
I assure my hon. Friend that we are still considering the issue and will report back to the House in due course.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I cannot stop raising this matter until the Martin family from my constituency get the support that they deserve. Their daughter, Claire Martin, died in Italy four and half years ago following multiple stab wounds to her throat. Her last words were “a man”. Her death was recorded as a suicide. Will the new ministerial team reply to my letter and agree to a meeting with the Martins?
Sir Alan Duncan
We have a dedicated consular team that often has to deal with issues of this sort. I will undertake to write to the hon. Lady. If she wants to come to see me and consular officials, I would be happy to arrange such a meeting.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer on Kashmir, where I was born. He says that it is up to India and Pakistan to come forward on the matter, but to get a long-term, lasting solution, the people of Kashmir must be given the right to self-determination in accordance with the 1948 UN Security Council resolution. The Prime Minister has said that she supports the rights of the United Nations—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I indulged the hon. Gentleman and the least he could do was to be brief.
Alok Sharma
As I noted earlier, we of course want a lasting peace in Kashmir. As for the resolution, we should be taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have overrun, but I am keen to accommodate colleagues. The last person whom I will be able to accommodate is Mr Rob Marris.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
What recent discussions have Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom had with Her Majesty’s Government in Canada on the outcome of the European Union referendum?
Sir Alan Duncan
There are regular discussions with the Government of Canada, which I look forward to visiting in due course. As for trade deals, they are a matter for the Department for International Trade.
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition, calling for fair transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s who are affected by the changes to the state pension age. Hon. Members will remember that the last time the House debated the Pensions Act 2011, Ministers promised that there would be fair transitional arrangements. These have failed to materialise, harshly affecting women in Edinburgh East and, indeed, in many other areas. I thank all those who have contributed to the petition, and the many others throughout the country who have similarly contributed to petitions lodged by other hon. Members.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Edinburgh East,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001932]
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition, signed by over 500 of the residents of Hove and Portslade, on behalf of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. The women who have signed the petition and those who would be beneficiaries of the petition have discovered the heartbreaking news that their plans, hopes and anticipation for retirement have been shattered. These women have acted with such good grace, dignity and unstoppable determination. They are a credit to our community, and I hope that the Government take heed of this petition.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The petition of residents of Hove.
[P001950]
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Telford, relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts.
My petition is identical to those already presented, so I will not read it out, and in any event I do not have my glasses.
The Petition of residents of Telford.
[P001949]
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I rise to present a petition from 26 residents of the Bury North constituency, collected by my constituent Mrs Christine Wootton, relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts. This petition is in the same terms as others presented today and on several recent days. It concludes:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The Petition of residents of Bury North.
[P001951]
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts. The petition is identical to the one presented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who has already referred to its content so I will not read out the full text. I wish to pay tribute to Wilma Grey, the Northern Ireland co-ordinator of this petition and the lobby group, who is also from Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It concludes:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The Petition of residents of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
[P001952]
Liberation of Mosul
(8 years, 1 month 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
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the liberation of Mosul and progress in counter-Daesh operations in Iraq and Syria.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
In the early hours of Monday morning, Prime Minister al-Abadi announced the start of the Iraqi-led operation to liberate Mosul. Iraqi forces are converging on the city from the east and south in the biggest offensive of the counter-Daesh campaign, designed to break Daesh’s grip on the largest city still within its grasp.
Iraqi forces have been preparing for the operation since the capture of Qayyarah in August. The aim is to drive out Daesh, but in a way that protects civilians. Thousands of Iraqi security personnel have passed though the coalition’s building partner capacity training programme, to which the UK makes a major contribution. Alongside other coalition aircraft, the RAF has been providing intelligence-gathering and intensive air support to Iraqi ground forces. More than half of the RAF’s recent strikes have been in and around Mosul. On the ground, British military instructors are, with coalition colleagues, helping to train, mentor and equip many of the forces engaged in the Mosul operation.
We recognise, as do the Iraqis, that this will be the greatest challenge that their security forces have yet encountered, and it will have significant humanitarian implications. The United Nations, in co-ordination with the Government of Iraq, is putting in place critical supplies of life-saving assistance, such as shelters, medical services and food, and the United Kingdom recently committed £40 million for the Mosul aid plan, bringing the total amount pledged by the UK to help Daesh’s victims in Iraq to almost £170 million since 2014. This will not be a quick operation, and we can expect Daesh to fight hard to keep Mosul. When I visited Baghdad and Erbil three weeks ago, senior Iraqi and coalition commanders outlined their plans for Mosul. Their confidence is high, and it is clear that Daesh is now failing. This year, it has suffered a series of crushing defeats: Ramadi was liberated in February, as was Hit in April and Falluja—the first city to be seized by Daesh—in June. Overall, the Daesh extremists now hold only 10% of Iraqi territory.
Ridding Iraq of Daesh was never going to be quick or easy, but as we enter the third year of the campaign, real progress is being made. Defeating Daesh in the long term will help make the streets of Britain and Europe safer. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the vital role of our armed forces in defeating this evil.
John Woodcock
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and, on behalf of the whole House, I pay tribute to the UK forces and all those involved in this incredibly dangerous operation. All of us who live free from oppression and go to bed each night in relative safety owe a debt of gratitude for what is being done to counter Daesh, as that evil force would destroy all our ways of life, no matter where we are.
I thank the Secretary of State for the detail he gave on current UK involvement, but can he say more about how he thinks it may evolve as the operation goes forward and as the question becomes one not of liberation but of maintaining security in Mosul and elsewhere? What is the UK doing to press our coalition partners to ensure that the protection of civilians is given the utmost priority? Everyone will know that he does not go into the details of operations and targeting, but it is well known that the UK has a more rigid procedure than applies in other areas and so what can he say about that?
What the Secretary of State said about Daesh being beaten back is so important, as we know. Daesh set itself up in Mosul as a caliphate that was to precede, in direct time, the “end of days”, which would secure Daesh’s particular perversion of Islamic law across the whole world. What can coalition partners do to get the message out to those who might otherwise be attracted into this madness that it is failing on its own terms and should not in any way be supported?
Finally, in Foreign Office questions, which helpfully preceded this urgent question, mention was made of reconstructing Mosul and Iraq. How will we show that we have learnt the lessons of previous failures over the past decade in Iraq, where we left a vacuum which the extremists were able to fill, both geographically and in the minds of Iraqi people?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the overall purpose of this campaign, which is not simply to help defend the new democracy of Iraq, but to eradicate a threat to us all and to our way of life. He asked me a number of questions. The UK will continue to assist this campaign; the RAF will be closely involved in air support of ground operations. We have already been targeting key terrorist positions, and command and control buildings in and around Mosul. The specialist mentors who have been helping to train Iraqi forces will continue to provide that support, although away from the combat zones. The rules of engagement that I set at the beginning of this campaign two years ago are not changed by the operation in Mosul, although it will of course be more difficult to conduct this operation in a closely packed urban environment.
So far as the future is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that when Daesh is eventually driven out of Iraq, as I hope it will be, we will have to continue all our efforts to combat its ideology and look more deeply at what attracted people to join up in the first place. We will need to work with moderate Islam right across the world to ensure that that perversion does not increase. Above all, as he said at the end, we need to learn the lesson of this campaign, which is that we must ensure that the Sunni population of Iraq has sufficient security in future and that we do not have to be asked back to do this all over again.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One lesson of the campaign in Iraq is clearly that if air power is to make a valid contribution, it must be in support of identifiable ground forces. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been much easier to identify ground forces that we can support from the air in Iraq than it has been, or will be, in Syria? Does he also agree that when Daesh is pushed out and ultimately defeated, there will be no shortage of other groups that adhere to the same poisonous totalitarian theology as Daesh, but that are not as vulnerable as Daesh because they do not propose to seize and hold territory?
Sir Michael Fallon
On the first point, my right hon. Friend is right. In Iraq, we have an operation that is being led by the Iraqi Government. These are Iraqi troops who are fighting for the freedom of their own country and to protect their own people. In Syria, we have some moderate ground forces—the Syrian democratic forces—who are ready and willing to take on Daesh. Although we see the liberation of Manbij and other towns and cities in the north of Syria, I accept that the situation in Syria is very much more complicated. If his final question was that we should despair and simply do nothing, I do not accept that. We must confront evil where we see it in this world, and, given the professionalism and power of our armed forces, I believe that where we are able to help those nascent democracies that ask for our help then we should do so.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The horror that Daesh has inflicted on the people of Mosul since it captured the city in June 2014 is unimaginable: women killed for not wearing full Islamic veils and gay men thrown from buildings. We fully support the operation to liberate the city, because Daesh, in its evil ideology, must be defeated wherever it emerges. I say that not only to protect the people of Iraq and Syria who have suffered such a great deal, but to protect our citizens here in the UK from the global threat posed by Daesh.
I appreciate the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). Although I fully accept that he cannot divulge the operational details on the Floor of the House, I ask him to set out in greater detail the full extent of the RAF’s involvement in the future, and how he intends to keep this House informed?
A number of forces are assisting with this important offensive, including militia groups and paramilitary figures, but there is concern about what would happen if some of these groups were to go into the city. What assurances has the Secretary of State had from the Iraqi authorities that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), indicated earlier, it is only the Iraqi army and Iraqi police who will enter Mosul? We expect this offensive to last weeks and possibly months, but, once it has been completed, there will be a need to secure and defend Mosul to ensure that Daesh is driven out for good and that the city does not descend into sectarian fighting. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what preparations are being made to protect the citizens and to rebuild the city, including the city’s infrastructure?
On the humanitarian situation, the United Nations has warned:
“In a worst-case scenario, up to 1 million people could be displaced”
as a result of this offensive. Will the Secretary of State set out in greater detail what humanitarian assistance the UK will be providing, not just in the immediate term, but in the longer term, to support any displaced people?
We stand in solidarity against Daesh and its wicked ideology, and with the brave armed service personnel who will be assisting vitally in this important campaign.
Sir Michael Fallon
Let me welcome the hon. Lady to her position. I think she is the fifth shadow Defence Secretary in the past two and a bit years, but she is welcome for all that. I particularly welcome the full support that she gave to this operation and the role that British forces are playing in it. I hope the House will continue to support the operation through thick and thin. It will be a complicated operation militarily, involving the liberation of a very large city, and I am grateful for her support.
The hon. Lady asked me five specific questions. First, the role of the RAF will continue to be to strike deliberate targets, particular positions and command and control centres in and around Mosul, as well as offering close air support to the ground assault as it begins. Secondly, we will keep the House regularly informed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is due to give the next of a series of regular updates. I gave one earlier in the summer and he is due to do that shortly, but I certainly undertake to keep the House fully informed. Thirdly, the hon. Lady asked me about some quite well-founded concerns that different groups—the Popular Mobilisation Forces, the peshmerga and so on—will go into areas of Mosul where they might not be particularly welcome. That has been very carefully evaluated by both the Iraqi and Kurdish leadership. Red lines have been drawn and everybody involved is very keen that those lines should not be crossed.
Fourthly, on the security of the city, Mosul is a very complex city, not entirely Sunni, but it is extremely important that the day after the city is liberated, the population there feel that they have sufficient reassurance—not just the reconnection of essential services, but sufficient reassurance—in the security of the city to be able to return. Finally, the hon. Lady asked me about the humanitarian assistance. Yes, as I think I said earlier, we will be providing tented accommodation and food supplies as part of the United Nations programme. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), has people ready in Iraq, and we are ready to go in and provide that help as soon as the fighting finishes.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Defence Secretary rightly commented on the contribution being made by British forces to this successful operation. He is correct to do so, but does he agree that this is an opportunity to reinforce our messages about the military covenant and the support that our armed forces in their turn need from us? In that context, will he particularly bend his mind to the new accommodation model that the Ministry of Defence is currently considering?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am happy to look at that again. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made great strides with the covenant in recent years, enshrining it into the law of the land and following up its implementation with local authorities and others. We are looking at new ways of providing or assisting with military accommodation. We are consulting on that and I will certainly bear my hon. Friend’s comments in mind.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We all earnestly hope that the liberation of Mosul will be swift and decisive and that Daesh will finally be driven out of Iraq for good. As we have heard, lessons must be learned from previous such military operations in Iraq, particularly the recapture of Falluja earlier this year, when non-Government militia were allowed to enter the city before the Iraqi security forces. Can we make sure that this does not happen in Mosul where, because of its huge strategic importance and the multi-ethnic composition of its inhabitants, the risks are much greater and the mistakes cannot be repeated? What discussions have the Secretary of State and his Department had with the Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi Government and the peshmerga to make sure that the 1.5 million civilians, including the hundreds of thousands of children, are protected both during the liberation of the city and in its rebuilding thereafter?
Sir Michael Fallon
I thank the hon. Gentleman and I hope he fully supports the operation. Four Scots were killed on a beach in Tunisia by extremists a little over a year ago, and we all have an interest in making sure that Daesh is finally driven out of Iraq and the threat to our own people is reduced. He asked the question at the front of everybody’s mind—that there should be no reprisals from one group or another as these cities are liberated. We have to learn the lessons each time and, city by city, improve the way in which security and reassurance can immediately be provided. That is something that I reviewed with the Iraqi and the Kurdish authorities on my recent visit, and everybody is aware of that danger.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which we welcome. It is early days in this conflict and we hope all goes well. I hope we can spare a thought for the journalists who are covering this conflict, whom we expect to bring us back the information and who can themselves be in a very vulnerable position. How does my right hon. Friend assess the contribution of Iranian forces, and how will the 80,000 to perhaps 100,000 who have been working in Iraq against Daesh be kept free from the sectarian problems that affected that country, to make sure that their contribution and influence in the future may be for good, rather than adding to the sectarian problems that may occur after the conflict is over?
Sir Michael Fallon
My right hon. Friend is right to praise the contribution of the British media, which have been following preparations for the assault and some of which are now close to the frontline. He raises an important point about Iranian influence not simply in Iraq, but in a number of these countries. Iran has the opportunity now, following the signing of the nuclear agreement, to show that it can be a force for good in these countries, and it is up to Iran to live up to its undertakings. The Iranians have given clear undertakings that they will not intervene malevolently in these cities as they are liberated in Iraq and we expect them to stick to that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We all wish the forces embarking on this operation well. Is the Defence Secretary aware of any arrangements that are being put in place as the liberation proceeds to collect evidence, including forensic evidence, of crimes that have been committed? As well as defeating Daesh in this city, it is important that those responsible for the most awful crimes are held to account in a court of law.
Sir Michael Fallon
The whole House would endorse that. The answer is yes, it is for the Iraqi Government to lead on that. This is an Iraqi operation, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in New York recently that we will be looking for sufficient evidence to indict in some form or other the leaders of this barbarism in recent years and see that they are held properly to account. With other countries in the coalition, we are also looking to see how we will treat our own foreign fighters who may be detained and potentially returned to this country, to make sure that they, too, are held to account for any crimes that they may have committed.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), does the Defence Secretary agree that there is a need for specialist UK input into investigating those crimes, which are utterly horrendous?
Sir Michael Fallon
I will certainly look at that. We have specialist expertise in this country, as my hon. Friend probably knows better than anybody, and the Iraqi Government are aware that they can call on that expertise, but I will remind them of it.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State say a little more about how he hopes the liberation of Mosul will impact on the campaign against Daesh in Syria, to which Parliament quite rightly extended consent for RAF involvement last year?
Sir Michael Fallon
Daesh regards Mosul as one of the two centres of the caliphate, alongside Raqqa, so we expect its defeat there to be a body blow more generally. It will sever the lines of communication between the two cities, and as a result, Raqqa will become more isolated as the border is increasingly sealed. The Daesh fighters who remain in Raqqa will have no other place to go. There will certainly be a military impact, but I hope that the liberation of Mosul will go further by helping finally to banish the mystique of Daesh, because it is not a successful organisation; it is a failing organisation that can and will be defeated.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I add my thanks to the serving UK personnel for all the work they are doing in the region. It is clear to me that there is already a serious humanitarian crisis in Daesh-controlled Mosul. What forward planning has been undertaken to ensure that those who have already been affected get humanitarian aid and those who sadly and inevitably will be affected receive the assistance they need?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important for the House to understand that there is already a humanitarian crisis inside Mosul. People there have been living under this appalling regime for over two years, suffering all the barbarities associated with it. That is the situation at present, even before the liberation has begun. To answer her question directly, the Department for International Development is part of the United Nations development programme. The Iraqi Government will ensure that civilians, where they can get out in advance of the final assault, are transported easily to safer areas, and then our agencies are ready to go in alongside the United Nations to ensure that there is sufficient food, medical supplies and tented accommodation for the others.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), aid agencies estimate that more than 700,000 people will be displaced by the conflict—more than the population of Glasgow. Save the Children is concerned that we do not yet have tents in which to put those people up or safe routes to ensure that they can get out of the city unimpeded by Daesh and other forces. Can the Secretary of State provide some reassurance on what the Government can do to provide safety on those routes, and tents and services when those people arrive?
Sir Michael Fallon
Those are very valid concerns that arise from what is now becoming a warzone in and around Mosul. As I have said, the Iraqi Government are fully aware of the need to cope with any increase in the displaced population, to arrange transport for those who can get out of the city to safer areas and to be ready with additional tented accommodation—winter is coming—to house the others. There has been a great deal of planning all summer for this operation and its consequences—what we call the day after Mosul is liberated.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend know whether Iraqi and peshmerga field medical units are as far forward as possible, so that they can tend for the wounded on all sides when they come in, and quickly?
Sir Michael Fallon
On my recent visit to Erbil, I saw for myself some of the medical evacuation training that British troops are offering to the peshmerga, showing them how to get casualties away from the frontline as rapidly as possible. That has been a big part of the training that we have been able to offer. They are now relatively seasoned troops; they have been doing this kind of operation for many months in other towns and villages, both in the north of Iraq and along the Euphrates valley, although not on this scale. They certainly understand the importance of getting casualties off the battlefield as quickly as possible.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The taking and holding of territory has been central to Daesh’s philosophy, in contrast to some earlier manifestations of that kind of ideology, so what is the next step in reducing the territory that will be held by Daesh after this operation, as well as combating the ideology, which in recent years has been used to justify not only what Daesh has done, but the killing of innocent civilians, from Mali to Tunisia, France and many other countries?
Sir Michael Fallon
The next step in Iraq is to push Daesh beyond the border, which will mean some mopping-up operations in the north of Syria and to the north and west of Mosul, and clearing Daesh out of some remaining smaller towns along the Euphrates river valley. Members of the coalition, in our regular meetings—we will be meeting in Paris next week—are already looking at what more can be done to counter Daesh globally and whether we can set up structures now that will enable us to respond much more quickly and come to each other’s aid should Daesh resurrect itself in different parts of Africa, or indeed in the far east.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the Abadi regime’s inability to deliver reform, would not we be wise to plan on the basis that Iraq is unlikely to survive as a unitary state and is more likely to break into its constituent confessional and ethnic parts?
Sir Michael Fallon
With respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that it is for us in this House to question now the integrity of Iraq or start designing a different shape for either it or Syria. We tried that around 100 years ago—indeed, it was a Conservative Back Bencher, Sykes, who first drew the line that runs between Syria and Iraq and presented it to Prime Minister Asquith. My right hon. Friend knows from his own ministerial experience how frustrating the pace of reform has been in Iraq—for example, to get the security and policing right, to delegate sufficient powers to the governors and to ensure that the army is properly accountable. Slowly, those reforms are being put in place. I think that we must continue to do what we are doing, which is accepting that these things are slow, but there is a democratic Government in Iraq who genuinely at the moment represent Shi’a, Sunni and Kurds in Iraq, and we have to work with them.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
First, on the Secretary of State’s point about driving ISIS out of Iraq, what assurances can he give the House that we will not see a repeat of the situation that followed the surge in 2006-07, which would allow ISIS to re-emerge from the deserts and move into Syria? What steps has he taken to stop that, working with the coalition partners? Secondly, when the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and I were in Iraq a couple of years ago, we were appalled by the dearth of intelligence. Is he satisfied that there have been significant improvements in intelligence on the ground?
Sir Michael Fallon
On the first point, nobody in the coalition—it includes some 60 countries, all involved in one way or another—wants to be back in Iraq doing this all over again in five or 10 years’ time, so we need to ensure that the political settlement that is left when Daesh is pushed out of the country endures and is as embedded as it can be and that both Sunnis and Shi’as can rely on sufficient security to get back to their cities, towns and villages and live their lives. We will therefore continue to encourage the process of political reform, which has been far too slow—in many respects, it has been behind the military progress that has been made. We will continue to encourage that.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recall that after the fall of Baghdad in the Iraq war, the allies were roundly criticised for not having a plan for reconstruction, thereby creating a vacuum, which, as we know, is extremely dangerous. Is he confident that an adequate plan for reconstruction will be put in place immediately after the fall of Mosul?
Sir Michael Fallon
As I said before, this is an Iraqi-led plan—an Iraqi-led campaign—to liberate Mosul, but from everything I have seen from visiting Baghdad recently, the Government are planning to get security into Mosul and to ensure that the essentials of life are restored there as quickly as possible, working through the local administration and the governor of Nineveh province, to make sure that people feel safe and can return to their homes. We will encourage that process politically, and we will also back it materially, with assistance from the Department for International Development.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be well aware of some of the horrific war crimes that have been committed against the Yazidi women in Mosul. Will he speak a little about what specialist services he and his colleagues will be able to provide for those women when they come out of that desperate situation?
Sir Michael Fallon
The Department for International Development has some specialist programmes already in preparation to deal with some of those victims of the barbarity we have seen. It is also important that those who are responsible for that barbarism, if it was done on a genocidal basis specifically against the Yazidis, are properly held to account, and that is something we are working on with other members of the coalition.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is good to hear about the positive progress that is being made in the counter-Daesh strategy, and particularly about the important role that is being taken forward by the peshmerga Kurds. What role did UK forces play in training those forces, and what other needs may have been identified for further assistance?
Sir Michael Fallon
It is perhaps worth saying that, when my hon. Friend refers to progress, we are at the very start of this campaign to encircle and then liberate Mosul. I must remind the House again that this may not be easy; there may well be setbacks along the way. We have trained a large number of peshmerga forces, as well as Iraqi troops, over the past two years. We can be proud of the role that the British Army has played, particularly in training them to deal with improvised explosive devices, which have been seeded on a much larger scale than in any previous campaign we have come across—far greater than in Afghanistan or in the original Iraq conflicts—and in helping them to deal with evacuation to face snipers. It has been a consistent training effort over the past two years, and I hope that, as a result, the peshmerga are better able to deal with what will be a very difficult assault.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
This conflict is taking place in a globalised world with social media. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to send out the very clear message that, although we have not seen the crimes and atrocities carried out inside Mosul by Daesh, terrible things will be portrayed from this conflict, which could take weeks or months, and many people will die, but that is a necessary part of saving the world and particularly of protecting Muslims around the world, who are dying as a result of the horrors carried out by this caliphate cult?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has experience of chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee in previous Parliaments. He is right: horrors are being perpetrated every day in Mosul, and that was the case long before the liberation and the assault started. We should not forget that some of these horrors have been perpetrated on our own citizens—on the hostages taken back in 2014—and others have been subject to atrocities ever since. It is important that the world does not forget just how evil Daesh has been in the extremes to which they have gone in punishing or killing those who happen not to accept the perversion they believe in.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Militias have been relied on to help defeat the death cult Daesh, but concerns have been raised about the involvement of Shi’a militias in liberating Mosul, based on the atrocities witnessed by Sunni residents during Falluja’s liberation from Daesh. What assurances has my right hon. Friend received that the very sectarian tensions that facilitated the rise of Daesh in the first place will not be stoked by Shi’a militias in Mosul?
Sir Michael Fallon
It is a very legitimate concern, rooted not just in some of the earlier operations but in earlier conflicts. Those were assurances that I pressed for, and examined very closely, on my recent visit. There are red lines drawn on which units are allowed to go where as the encirclement operation begins. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that everybody in Baghdad and in Erbil—the Sunni and Shi’a members of the Iraqi Government—is very much aware of the need to do this operation, in what is essentially a Sunni city, but not entirely a Sunni city, in a way that gives the majority Sunni population of Mosul the confidence to return to their city in the knowledge that they will be able to live safely there thereafter.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
As the offensive continues, it is likely that many Daesh fighters will try to blend in with the local civilian population. Can any specialist training be undertaken for the peshmerga and other forces to ensure that, if that does happen, any terrorist atrocities that may emerge in the longer term from within civilian life are limited?
Sir Michael Fallon
That is an important point. We do not yet know whether Daesh will stand and fight, which they have done in some cities, or whether they will try to melt away. All we know at the moment is that Mosul is a very well-defended city; preparations for its defence have been going on as long as preparations for the assault, so all the signs are that Daesh will defend it for some time. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about training. Specialist units in the Iraqi forces are trained in this counter-terrorism work, and we have every interest in making sure that the Daesh leadership, in particular, as well as the rank and file of the terrorists, are detained wherever possible.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
A successful ground offensive will require a huge improvement in the morale and fighting spirit of the Iraqi forces. What part have the UK and her allies played in making that improvement to the morale of Iraqi forces, and is my right hon. Friend confident that he can continue that work, so that Daesh has no respite and no chance to re-establish itself?
Sir Michael Fallon
I was impressed by the confidence of Iraqi commanders on my most recent visit, compared with their approach to all this, say, a year ago. They have been encouraged by the relative ease with which cities and towns along the Euphrates river valley were liberated. They were—certainly a few weeks ago—very much looking forward to the Mosul campaign and regard it is as something that is difficult but doable. They have that confidence, and the Iraqi troops that I have seen being trained by our own forces are a very different army from the army that first fled in front of the Daesh advance in the spring and summer of 2014.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
First, I would like to wish our armed forces a safe and successful campaign. We have heard that up to 1 million civilians may flee Mosul, many of them children who will have been deprived of education, who will have suffered the psychological impact of warfare and who, in the case of young teenagers, may be screened by the Iraqi forces as they come out. What ability do the UK Government have—on the ground, directly—to monitor the safety, education and health of young children?
Sir Michael Fallon
Counselling of children, and indeed child protection, will be central to the work of the International Development Department and the United Nations programme after the liberation of Mosul, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to caution us. This is a military assault on a very large city; this is likely to be a war zone for some weeks and months. The Iraqi forces have done their best to warn the population of what lies ahead, but this is going to be difficult, and they are going to make every effort to protect the civilian population from the assault itself.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for tabling this urgent question and for visiting the region and engaging with the group. I also personally thank my former colleagues in the Royal Air Force for their service in this operation. Military support to the peshmerga is ongoing, but will the Secretary of State update the House on what rehabilitation and medical support there might be, particularly bearing in mind the wonderful facility at Headley Court, for any injured peshmerga fighters?
Sir Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force. We have touched on the role of the British Army, but over the past two years, since the House gave its authority for strikes in Iraq, we have seen the most intense campaign being managed by the Royal Air Force from Akrotiri and other bases in the Gulf, at a tempo we have not seen since the first Gulf war. I know the House would want to pay tribute not only to the pilots who fly the planes but to the huge back-up operation that sits behind them. On his particular point about medical support, perhaps he will allow me to write to him.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to stress that this is an Iraqi-led campaign but our armed forces are there because it will make a material difference to our own safety here. On that basis, what can he do, and what can we all do, to ensure that people in this country realise that we are engaged in this campaign not because it is a war against Islam but because it is a war that is being undertaken to support a democratically elected Muslim Government against those who would pervert that religion for their own barbaric ends?
Sir Michael Fallon
On the first point, we must all continue to remind our constituents of why we got involved back in the summer of 2014: the horrors that were being inflicted on our hostages; the barbarity of the treatment of women and of gay people in Daesh areas; and the indiscriminate slaughter that Daesh has inflicted, as we have seen in western Europe, on people whether they shared the Islamic faith or not. We do have to remind people of why we are there. Then we have to do much more to support moderate Islam in some of the very good work that is being done in this country and elsewhere, through programmes run here and in other countries, including Saudi Arabia, on how we de-radicalise those who might be tempted to join this kind of extremist terror in future.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the start of this operation, but it is worth bearing in mind that it could turn into a fire fight in a large urban area with an enemy that is absolutely fanatical and has absolutely no respect for human rights law. How satisfied is the Secretary of State that the forces taking part have the ability to conduct this operation according to the current rules of engagement, and that we will have measures in place to allow civilians to flee while making sure that the cowards in Daesh, who are likely to run away from the onslaught, will be identified and captured?
Sir Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend is right to warn the House that this will be a fire fight—a series of fire fights. I have been at pains to indicate that it is not going to be easy; it is going to be difficult in a very crowded urban area. Inevitably, there will be damage, and no doubt civilian casualties as well. As regards rules of engagement, the Iraqi Government have assured the coalition that their troops are bound by the rules of international humanitarian law—the Geneva conventions— just as western forces are. Indeed, that has been part of the training that we have been able to offer.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Bruno Geddo, the Iraq representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is reported on the BBC as saying three days ago that if the situation in the city
“is arranged in a proper way—everything will be controlled by the Iraqi army—people will not be allowed to flee Mosul”.
What will
“people will not be allowed to flee Mosul”
mean in practice?
Sir Michael Fallon
It is already quite difficult for the civilian population to get out of Mosul. They are being restricted, in the first place, by Daesh, which does not want them to leave Mosul, but the city is now, of course, being increasingly encircled by the forces that are there to liberate it. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Iraqi Government are ready to help civilians who can get out of Mosul by getting them easily to much safer areas well away from the frontline. As he suggests, the United Nations will be working with its agencies to make sure that help is brought forward as quickly as possible to those civilians who do escape.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Television news coverage yesterday seemed to suggest, first, that the balance of forces between the Iraqi army and the peshmerga and Daesh was about 10:1; and secondly, that the Iraqi army had access to very heavy armour whereas the peshmerga did not. Are both those things correct, or was I not paying enough attention?
Sir Michael Fallon
I think my hon. Friend pays quite a lot of attention to most things, and I would not want to accuse him of inattention. I am not sure about the exact percentage that he quotes, but having visited Erbil recently and been out with the peshmerga and seen the training they receive, it is clear that they have sufficient equipment to participate in this operation, and have a well-defined role within it.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments in support of our armed forces, but also send our thoughts and prayers to the people of Mosul who will be living through the liberation. As the Secretary of State knows, what became clear after Ramadi was the industrial use of IEDs to undermine people’s lives as they tried to move back into their homes. There were huge human casualties associated with that within the Iraqi forces. We have very specialist expertise in this area. Given the scale of Mosul, with 1.7 million people, we can only imagine what they are doing. What additional support are we giving to the Iraqis in terms of training to deal with the counter-IED operation?
Sir Michael Fallon
This conflict has a much larger dimension than previous ones. We have seen industrial-scale use of IEDs in cities such as Ramadi and elsewhere, where IEDs have been built into the walls of houses, concealed in rubble, and put under desks in schools and colleges. We have had to help the Iraqi army learn how to deal with that. A huge part of the training effort that we have been putting in at the four building partner capacity centres across Iraq has been specifically dedicated to counter-IED training that helps troops to recognise different types of IED, to recognise the traps that may be laid within IED devices, and to clear the IED once they have identified it.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The previous al-Maliki Government pushed a sectarian agenda against the Sunnis that led to the rise of Daesh. Bearing in mind that the composition of Mosul is predominantly Sunni, what steps have been taken to ensure that the Iraqi army is reflective of that, given that Turkey has indicated that it will be sending troops into Mosul to ensure that Sunnis’ rights are protected?
Sir Michael Fallon
We all want to make sure that Sunnis’ rights are protected. It is incumbent on the Iraqi Government, who have Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish representation, to ensure that all parts of Iraq are fully protected. The aim of the Government in the reforms that they are driving through is to devolve more power to the governor of Nineveh province, in which Mosul sits, to ensure that he and the local administration can provide such reassurance. It is critical to the campaign that Sunnis in Iraq understand that the Iraqi forces are for them as much as for the Shi’as.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I am sure the Defence Secretary agrees that one of the positive developments is that the peshmerga and the Iraqi forces are working together against Daesh for the first time. Can he suggest ways in which that constructive co-operation might be continued in other operations?
Sir Michael Fallon
That co-operation is essential not only for the liberation of Mosul, a city that sits very near to the Kurdish region, but for the future of Iraq. I am encouraged by the recent negotiations over the distribution of the oil revenue and some of the other accommodations that have been reached between Prime Minister Barzani and Prime Minister al-Abadi down in Baghdad. I hope that that will bode well for the integrity of Iraq as well as for the future of the Kurdish and Iraqi populations.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I also support our Government’s role in this operation. There are already reports that Daesh is threatening to use civilians as human shields and to execute anyone trying to flee. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is accurate, and is there anything that can be done to counter that particular form of barbarism?
Sir Michael Fallon
I have seen reports along the lines of Daesh being prepared to put women and children in military buildings in order to prevent those buildings from becoming a target. We are dealing with a ruthless enemy that has not hesitated, over two years, to kill anybody, including woman, child and fellow Muslims. There is very little that we can do to control that, other than to show our absolute determination, whatever the cost and difficulty of this campaign, to deal with Daesh and to get it out of Iraq altogether.
Points of Order
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Public Accounts Committee has summoned witnesses from the Department for Communities and Local Government to come before it tomorrow to explain reports that the troubled families programme has not been achieving its aims. Since 5 October, my Committee has been asking the Department to release six evaluation reports on the scheme. After much delay, they were finally published on the Department’s website at 6 o’clock yesterday evening. The reports amount to 800 pages of evidence. I am very concerned that, with the tardy release of that important information, the Government are trying to obfuscate proper parliamentary scrutiny of an important Government flagship programme and the money spent on it.
I seek your support and guidance, Mr Speaker, on how we can ensure that Ministers are reminded of the importance of providing proper information to this House so that we can carry out our task for citizens and taxpayers in scrutinising the Government’s business.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, both for her point of order and for her courtesy in providing me with advance notice of it. There is a clear expectation that Government Departments should co-operate fully with Select Committee inquiries, not least inquiries of the Committee of Public Accounts, and that they should furnish information in a timely fashion. That does not appear to have happened in this case. If for any reason there is a problem, the Department should communicate it promptly to the Committee so that it can, if it so wishes, adjust its schedule. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s concerns have been heard on the Treasury Bench and that they will be conveyed to the relevant Ministers. Meanwhile, she has made her point clearly, and she has done so on the record.
Quite how the hon. Lady and her Committee wish now to proceed in the light of the untimely provision of a vast tranche of information is, of course, for them to consider. Upon the whole, one would expect that a Committee would undertake its work without also considering Chamber devices for scrutiny of Ministers. The two, however, are not automatically and necessarily mutually exclusive, so if at some point the hon. Lady, a member of her Committee or any other Member wishes to probe a Minister in the Chamber on the substance of the issue or the reason for what appears to be an excessive delay, it is open to them to seek that route. I make no promise as to whether it would be successful, but it is open to Members.
The key point is that Committees hold the Government to account, and it is up to the Government to co-operate with the Committee, not only in accordance with the letter, if you will, but in accordance with the spirit.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on information provided to MPs in written answers regarding military matters. It is customary—and necessary, of course—not to provide information about some security matters to Members. No doubt that is why, in answer to a written question about whether the UK Government will display online the flight paths of Russian planes over Syria, I was told that that information could not be made available for security reasons. Could you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether I could challenge that ruling, given that such information is readily available in relation to commercial planes, that the Russians know that they are being monitored and, indeed, that they have to be, to avoid conflict in Syrian airspace?
Mr Speaker
I had no advance notice of this and I know that the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to invest me with sagacity and powers that perhaps I do not possess. I am disinclined to respond substantively on the matter at this time, but my advice to the right hon. Gentleman, which I hope he will welcome, is that at this stage his best course is to write to the Secretary of State and seek either to elicit a written reply, which he can then study and evaluate, or alternatively to request a meeting to discuss the matter. If that route does not avail him, he can come back to Chamber, and I have a strong hunch that he will do so.
If there are no further points of order and the appetite has been satisfied, at least for now, we come to the ten-minute rule Bill.
National Health Service Staff (Reporting and Registration)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Health Service Staff (Reporting and Registration) Bill 2016-17 View all National Health Service Staff (Reporting and Registration) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision for the central reporting and registration of agency staff employed by National Health Service trusts, facilities and services; to make provision for the central reporting and recording of absence from work of permanent NHS employees; and for connected purposes.
The NHS has a budget of £116.4 billion for 2015-16. It is distributed among NHS providers, including 11 NHS trusts in England, one of which is the Wye Valley NHS Trust, which administers my constituency of North Herefordshire. In 2014-15, the Wye Valley NHS Trust budget was £183.637 million. Most of the trust’s expenditure is on staffing, which last year cost it £115.4 million—63%—of its total expenditure. That includes all staff—permanent, bank and agency.
Agency staff cost more than permanent staff directly employed by the NHS, because private companies dictate what our public NHS pays for them. The Government are working to limit that cost to the NHS by introducing a cap on fees paid to agency workers. I support and congratulate the Government on their work to limit the increasing privatisation of the NHS, because I am against the principle that private agencies can control NHS spending and I do not want the NHS open to abuse, which can be the case under our current system.
I propose the creation of a database of all workers in the NHS—agency and direct employees—and that it takes note of when they are working or claiming sick pay. Those data already exist in NHS bodies, and I would like them to be pooled to benefit the whole of the NHS.
There is too much reliance on locums and agency workers. We all know that our NHS staff are some of the most hard-working individuals, as they strive to keep our communities healthy and safe, but there is a struggle to fill certain gaps in staff owing to a lack either of individuals or of specific skills. That is a particular problem in rural areas, where there are simply fewer people with the specific skills that some NHS bodies require. That is compounded by the fact that those who are qualified can become agency workers and do the same job for more money. That, in turn, leads to the NHS employing more agency staff.
Between February and April, the Wye Valley NHS Trust used agency workers in the posts of band 2 healthcare assistants and band 5-plus registered nurses for an average of 1,966 shifts a month, at an average cost of £746,000 a month. That equates to £8.9 million a year for agency staff in those two categories alone.
That is why the Government’s work to cap the amount paid to agencies for their staff in NHS organisations is so important. Agency work cost £3.3 billion last year. So far this year, the price cap has saved £300 million, as the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), said in response to a question on 12 September, although I have heard that the figure is now much closer to £650 million. In order to support the excellent work that the Government are doing, we should accordingly require agency staff—and, in particular, information about their sick days—to be centrally registered on the NHS. Because information about agency workers is not detailed centrally on the NHS, staff may be employed directly with an NHS trust and also registered with an agency. These two employers do not share information about their workers, even though agency workers are based in NHS organisations. People may say that there are not enough staff in the NHS, but it is clear that there are if we count them properly. A register like the one I am proposing will also demonstrate the areas in which we need to focus our training resources, to make sure that we train the right people.
The vast majority of workers who are employed by both organisations are hard-working, honest people, but there are always some who seek to abuse the system. In 2015, a nurse who worked for an NHS hospital trust was struck off after making £10,000 by working agency shifts while on sick leave, and that is not an isolated case. Such cases cost the NHS not only through fraudulent sick pay but more generally as a cost to the public purse, and we also lose the individuals involved.
The NHS is aware of the risk of payroll abuse and sick leave fraud, and it has sent leaflets to members to make them aware of it. However, without a central system of data sharing between these bodies, organisations have to rely on hearsay to report abuse of the system. This is a good starting point, but it does not eliminate the risk of fraudulent activities , and we need the money to be saved for patients.
The lack of communication between the bodies needs to be rectified. We need to combat those who take advantage of the system by making information about employees more accessible to employers, to make sure that employees are paid fairly and the NHS does not suffer unnecessarily. The Bill would support the Government’s hard work to reduce unnecessary costs to the NHS by making it harder for those who take advantage of the system to do so. The Bill would create a centrally kept register of all the agency staff used across the NHS. The register would indicate when those staff were off sick and claiming sick pay. If those data were pooled, abuse could be spotted. The small cost that would be involved in pooling agency data is far outweighed by the risk of abuse and lack of control. All the data already exist, after all; it is simply a case of sharing them.
Information about the sick pay of NHS employees is already stored and reported on. For Wye Valley NHS Trust last year, the figure was just 4.33%. By the same yardstick, agency workers are paid by a public body, so their sick pay data should be stored and shared. There is no better way of managing the enormous agency bill than by ensuring that the data are used wisely.
People speak against the privatisation of the NHS, but that is exactly what will happen if the NHS loses control of its staff requirements. Agencies provide the staff our patients need for their safety. That must be controlled; otherwise, we will never be able to achieve the worthy target of getting the right pay for the right people, doing the right jobs. Our NHS staff deserve no less.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Bill Wiggin present the Bill.
Bill Wiggin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2017, and to be printed (Bill 76).
Broadcasting
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 53 / Noes: 270 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of John Nicolson, whom I will call to move the amendment formally at the end of the debate.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I beg to move,
That this House approves the draft Agreement (Cm 9332), between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was laid before this House on 15 September 2016.
I start with an apology. Although I am delighted to be here for the debate, I will have to leave at some point this afternoon—I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House will forgive me—because we have, as Members will know, a magnificent celebration of our Olympic and Paralympic athletes. It was an enormous pleasure to be in Manchester with them yesterday, and I look forward to seeing them again today.
I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to his place. It is a great pleasure to see him sitting opposite me, and I am sure that we will enjoy many happy debates across the Dispatch Box.
The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world, and it is widely recognised as such throughout the world. Despite what some people would have the world believe, the Government know that the BBC is one of our greatest institutions and must be nurtured and cherished. The fact that we received more than 190,000 submissions to our consultation shows how deeply people care about the BBC. It is, therefore, quite right that the changes we are making to the BBC will strengthen it, secure its funding, protect it, decouple the charter from the electoral cycle and ensure that the BBC not only survives but thrives.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has talked about providing appropriate funding for the BBC to make sure that it is funded well. At the same time, the Government have inappropriately imposed on the BBC the costs of free licences for the over-75s and of overseas monitoring for the security services and the Foreign Office. What does she have to say to that?
Karen Bradley
I have also enjoyed sparring with the hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box. I will come on to the details of the funding later, but I believe that this funding settlement is a strong one that puts the BBC on a sustainable footing with an inflationary increase in the licence fee.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The former arts Minister, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), does not think so, as he told us last time we debated the matter. Many of us in this House think that the idea of suddenly forcing the BBC to pay for free television licences is a complete disgrace.
Karen Bradley
The BBC has agreed to this through negotiations and discussions, and I am confident that the funding settlement puts the BBC on a sustainable long-term footing.
Karen Bradley
I will take one more intervention, and then I will make some progress.
Christian Matheson
I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). This funding mechanism is not to pay for free TV licences; it is, surely, to pay for a Conservative manifesto commitment.
Karen Bradley
The funding settlement is to pay for the very best BBC, which we all want to see. I am absolutely confident that this funding settlement will provide that.
Karen Bradley
No, I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I will come back to funding shortly, but I want to put on record the fact that the draft charter contains a few small, technical omissions and errors. We will publish shortly a revised charter that includes all those points, on which I know some hon. and right hon. Members have picked up.
The BBC royal charter and agreement will support a BBC that makes and broadcasts world-class content; that provides impartial, high-quality news; that is independent, transparent, and accountable; and that works with, rather than against, the rest of the United Kingdom creative sector. The BBC director-general, Lord Hall, hailed the draft charter as
“the right outcome for the BBC and its role as a creative power for Britain”.
The new royal charter will make the BBC stronger in a number of ways. It will increase the BBC’s independence, improve its regulation, make it more transparent and accountable to licence fee payers, and make it better reflect the whole United Kingdom. First of all, the BBC will become more independent.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Helen Goodman
The Secretary of State has just said that the new royal charter will maintain the BBC’s independence, but I draw her attention to paragraph 4 of the draft agreement that she laid before the House last month, which states:
“By entering into this Agreement, the BBC has…assumed obligations which restrict, to some extent, its future freedom of action.”
How can that possibly be consistent with what she has just said about its independence?
Karen Bradley
When the hon. Lady looks at the charter as a whole, she will see that the BBC will become more independent. It is very easy to take one line from an agreement and try to demonstrate the opposite. As a whole, the charter will make the BBC more independent.
Karen Bradley
No, I will make some progress.
A majority—nine out of 14—of the members of the new unitary board will be appointed by the BBC. That contrasts with past appointments by Governments of every member of the BBC governing board. The new director-general will be editor-in-chief and have final responsibility for individual decisions on the BBC’s editorial matters and creative output.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State not understand the difference between appointments to a unitary board that has overall editorial control over the BBC and appointments to a system of trustees or governors who do not have such editorial control?
Karen Bradley
I understand that point, but I think this structure will give the BBC more independence. The fact that the majority of directors will be appointed by the BBC makes it clear that the Government want the BBC to be independent, to be strong and to succeed.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
On that point, does my right hon. Friend accept that the director-general remains the editor-in-chief and that the role of the unitary board is only to scrutinise, post-broadcast, decisions the director-general has made?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend exactly sums up the position.
The longer—11-year—royal charter will separate charter renewal from the electoral cycle, which has been widely welcomed. I reiterate that the mid-term review after six years will be a health check, not another charter review in all but name. It is surely eminently sensible to check how effectively new arrangements are working before 11 years have gone by. Moreover, article 57 of the charter states:
“The review must not consider…the mission of the BBC;…the Public Purposes of the BBC; or…the licence fee funding model of the BBC for the period of this Charter.”
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there will be a further huge change in viewing habits from traditional television to online and on-demand viewing over the 11-year charter renewal period? Will she consider decriminalising non-payment of the TV licence for viewing the iPlayer and will she in effect implement decriminalising non-payment of the TV licence over the charter renewal period, which would be widely supported and welcomed?
Karen Bradley
I know my hon. Friend has campaigned strongly on this issue, and I understand the point he makes.
I will go through some further points about the new charter. The BBC will be regulated more effectively under it. The charter and agreement set out Ofcom’s new role as the BBC’s independent regulator. Ofcom will monitor and review how well the BBC meets its mission and public purposes, regulate editorial standards, hold the BBC to account on market impacts and public value, and consider relevant complaints from viewers, listeners and other stakeholders where complainants are not satisfied with resolution by the BBC.
Maria Eagle
Given the high number of extra roles and duties that Ofcom is taking on, will the Secretary of State undertake to the House today to ensure it is properly remunerated and given enough resource to do the extra job it will now have to do?
Karen Bradley
Ofcom has been asked about that point, and it has set out that it has the capabilities and the competence to do this work. The charter is the result of extensive negotiations between the BBC, Ofcom and others, and I am confident that Ofcom has the resources to be able to fulfil its obligations.
It is fundamentally important that the BBC should be impartial. Colleagues have been keen to impress that point on me in the run-up to and following the EU referendum. Although it is not for the Government to arbitrate on such matters, I will make sure that Ofcom never forgets what a vital duty it has in this regard. These are big new responsibilities for Ofcom, and it is rightly going to consult with the industry on its new operating framework for the BBC next year.
It will also be Ofcom’s job to set regulatory requirements for the BBC to be distinctive. Schedule 2 to the agreement makes it clear that the BBC’s output and services as a whole need to be distinctive, so concerns that this is a way for the Government to interfere with specific programmes are totally unfounded. The provisions in the charter that place new duties on the BBC to consider its impact on the market are not about reducing the BBC’s role per se.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I would be very interested to know the right hon. Lady’s personal perspective on what “distinctive” means. Does it mean distinct from other channels or from international broadcasters? Will she clarify what it means in this context?
Karen Bradley
I think “distinctive” means both those things. It means that the BBC is a unique and distinctive broadcaster that offers a range of outputs across television and radio, appeals to a wide variety of the population and offers programming that simply would not be delivered in a commercial context.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
One of the distinctive areas and advantages of the BBC is its ability to take forward policy initiatives such as commitments to minority language broadcasting. Does the Secretary of State understand the concern felt among those in the excellent operation at BBC Alba that the framework agreement as currently drafted is not entirely to their advantage? It needs to be looked again, particularly with regard to the fact that the funding source should continue to come from the BBC UK pot as part of a commitment to minority languages across the whole of the UK.
Karen Bradley
BBC Alba is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC. The charter and the framework set out very clearly the requirements on BBC Alba. I would be very happy to meet representatives of BBC Alba if they feel that something has not been considered, although, from our previous conversations, I think such points have been addressed.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most distinctive forms of BBC output and the way in which it probably comes closest to meeting its public service requirements is BBC local radio? It provides the very focused and, I would argue, often unique output that is very valuable to many communities up and down the United Kingdom.
Karen Bradley
I agree with my hon. Friend that BBC local radio is very important for all our local areas. I will give BBC Radio Stoke a plug, because I know it would be disappointed if I did not do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) seems to agree with that point. I am sure we all feel the same about our local radio. The point of the charter and the framework is to provide such a regional focus and to ensure it is maintained.
Karen Bradley
I have taken several interventions, and I am afraid I want to make some progress.
We are making the BBC more transparent and accountable, as is only right for an institution that receives so much public money and means so much to the public. The salaries of individuals who earn £150,000 and above will be made public. There will also be a full, fair and open competition for the post of chair of the new BBC Board. The National Audit Office will become the BBC’s financial auditor, and it will be able to conduct value-for-money studies of the BBC’s commercial subsidiaries. The NAO is held in very high regard, and it has extensive experience of scrutinising commercial and specialised organisations such as Network Rail and the security services.
Finally, the Government have listened carefully to those who said that the BBC must better reflect and represent each of the home nations. They are right. The charter provides for a strengthened public purpose, emphasising the fact that the BBC has a central role in the creative economy across the UK’s nations and regions. Appointments to the unitary board of members for the nations will need the agreement of the devolved Minister or, for the England member, the Secretary of State. The charter obliges the BBC to appear before Committees and to lay its annual reports and accounts in the devolved legislatures.
Ian C. Lucas
The Secretary of State commends BBC Radio Stoke, and I know that local radio is hugely important. Is it not unfortunate, therefore, that we do not have BBC local radio in Wales? One station alone represents the whole of Wales—BBC Radio Wales, along with Radio Cymru. Is it not time that we had local radio services in Wales in the way we have them in England?
Karen Bradley
Clearly that is a matter for the BBC. I sometimes pick up BBC Radio Wales in my constituency in Staffordshire—it seems to have a wide and long reach and is clearly reaching areas outside its normal remit.
The BBC must fully reflect the diverse nature of the UK. For the first time, diversity is enshrined in the charter’s public purposes and requirements on minority language provision are strengthened. The charter will be considered by the Privy Council before the Government seek Royal Assent.
We had an excellent debate in the other place last week and I am pleased to have another opportunity to debate the world’s finest broadcaster in this Chamber. Our changes will secure the future of the BBC, strengthen it, give it an unprecedented degree of independence and make it more transparent, accountable and representative. This Government believe in the BBC.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I particularly draw Members’ attention to the fact that I have only recently stood down as vice-chair of the all-party group on the BBC.
May I say how much we are looking forward to working with the new Secretary of State and her team? She was generous and engaged in constructive dialogue when she was a Home Office Minister, and I hope that we can continue that relationship in our new posts. I also wish to thank my predecessors in this role, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who has shown that he has not lost his tenacity or his energy in this policy area, and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who offered such robust scrutiny of the White Paper when it was discussed earlier in the year.
The Labour party welcomes the fact that the charter provides the BBC with the funding and security it needs as it prepares to enter its second century of broadcasting. The BBC embodies those enduring British values of hard work, creativity, innovation and co-operation. It helps to ensure that Britain’s voice is heard around the world, and it has informed and entertained countless millions of listeners, viewers and web users. It did so once again over the summer with its truly exceptional coverage of the Olympics in Rio, and I know that the whole House will agree that we should acknowledge that on the day we celebrate the achievements of our athletes by throwing a fantastic party in Trafalgar Square later.
While we welcome the charter, we have some misgivings, as the Secretary of State has seen, about the responsibilities that the BBC has been obliged to accept. In particular, we are extremely concerned about the Government’s decision to force the BBC to meet the cost of providing free TV licences to the over-75s. That was done without meaningful public consultation and little parliamentary debate, and it was part of a deal that was made behind closed doors.
Kelvin Hopkins
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State; I am sure he will enjoy the job.
The imposition of the cost of licences for over-75s was carried out at the same time as the charter was being negotiated. Does that not imply that a degree of duress was involved in making the BBC accept that decision?
Mr Watson
It is certainly not the most ideal of circumstances to face when negotiating for survival. We do not think that there was a meaningful public consultation and we had hoped that those days were behind us. We feel strongly that that situation cannot be allowed to happen again. This was the second time that the Government had approached their deliberations with the BBC by placing a gun to its head. In 2010, the coalition Government forced the BBC to take on the cost of paying for the World Service. The Government approached the negotiations in 2010 and 2015 with the subtlety of a ram raider approaching a jewellery shop. Their approach was described as a “smash and grab raid”.
We expect the Secretary of State to reassure us that the next licence fee settlement will be agreed in a transparent manner and according to a clear timetable. It must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and put out to public consultation, so that whoever is in power cannot railroad a settlement through again. Please will the Secretary of State give a guarantee to the House that such a system will be put in place? We will work with her to achieve that.
I am sure that some people believe that asking the BBC to pay £700 million a year for free licences was clever politics, but I think it was political irresponsibility, verging on negligence. The BBC is not an arm of the Government. It should not be asked to meet the cost of Government policies and it should not be asked to implement changes to the Government’s social security policy.
Karen Bradley
It is worth putting on record that the BBC licence fee has been frozen for the last six years. The Government have agreed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation, which will result in additional income for the BBC of £18 billion in the period up to 2021. That is more than enough compensation for the money the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The issue of licences for over-75s was dealt with outside the charter arrangements. This is a fair settlement that gives the BBC good funding and the licence fee payer good value for money.
Mr Watson
It is certainly a settlement. The BBC has accepted it as a settlement, and that is why we will not oppose the motion, but it is not unreasonable for us to press the Secretary of State on why an instrument of social security policy is being passed to the BBC. We are considering carefully whether we can challenge the measure in the Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, because the extra cost imposed on the BBC is the equivalent of a 20% budget cut. I know the deal has been struck and different income streams have been negotiated within it, but the manner in which it has been done is distinctly unfair. The Government are passing responsibility for social security cuts that they should take on to a British institution.
Ian C. Lucas
When my hon. Friend considers trying to amend the Digital Economy Bill, will he bear in mind that £630 million of public money was taken from the BBC to fund broadband in the previous Parliament? The Government have real form with raids on the BBC.
Mr Vaizey
I am sorry to shout so dramatically, but I took on board what the hon. Gentleman said—I listen to every word he says—about his ear infection and I wanted to grab his attention. May I point out that the money from the BBC television licence fee that was used for broadband was actually the surplus left over from Labour’s highly successful digital switchover programme? That programme was so successful that it underspent its budget, and we used the surplus to pursue our own extremely successful broadband programme.
Mr Watson
I am being slightly diverted from the motion. I have only been in this role for 10 days, so I may not have my facts entirely right, but I think that the £630 million that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) described has also been underspent to the tune of £60 million. It would be very useful if the Government could give that money back to the BBC so that it could be put into diverse broadcasting such as children’s broadcasting, in which the right hon. Gentleman and I both have an interest.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in an age when all other public bodies are being asked to make efficiency savings, it is reasonable for the BBC to be asked to share some of the burden, especially given the fact that the BBC overspends on a lot of programme making? For example, it took twice the number of people to the Olympics than other broadcasters took? Salaries are still going up, the top echelons have not been reduced and huge pension settlements are still being given to those who leave the BBC.
Mr Watson
I hope that I have not given the hon. Gentleman the impression that I do not think viewers need value for money—they certainly do. The transparency measures agreed by both sides of the House have helped to ensure that the value-for-money case is made internally within the BBC.
Kelvin Hopkins
Hon. Members are eliding public spending, which is paid for by taxation, and licence fee spending, which might be seen as a relatively regressive form of taxation, but is not public funding in the same sense.
Mr Watson
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
We will always make the case for a strong, independent and well-funded BBC. That was what we did in government and it is what we intend to do in opposition. I hope that we can move on from the days when a small group of campaigners routinely questioned whether the BBC should exist at all. For a handful of people, the licence fee that has funded the BBC for nearly a century is an aberration. They believe that the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit. Perhaps they believe that 40p a day is an outrageous price to pay for the BBC’s startling array of television and radio news coverage, current affairs programmes, natural history, drama, comedy and children’s programmes. Perhaps they would rather see the BBC smaller and a little duller. I do not believe that and the British public do not believe it either. That was why there were 192,000 responses to the Government’s consultation on the future of the BBC, and why the overwhelming majority were favourable and supportive.
I pay tribute to the campaigners whose tireless work helped to deliver a BBC charter that is likely to secure its future: the Great BBC campaign, founded by Lord Waheed-Alli and Charlie Parsons; the Save our BBC campaign; the 38 Degrees petition to protect our BBC, which now has over 390,000 signatures; and all the creative industry trade unions, including the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, Equity, the Musicians’ Union, the National Union of Journalists and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. All came together in a coalition to defend the BBC. They raised awareness, generated support and helped to deliver those 192,000 responses to the Government’s consultation. On both sides of the House, we are indebted to them all.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I agree completely that there was some very effective campaigning, but will the hon. Gentleman accept that there was also a lot of unnecessary scaremongering? For example, an accusation was sent to Government Members’ mailboxes about the wholesale destruction of the BBC by the Tories. That was never the intent and never the case, and some people need to apologise.
Mr Watson
I am afraid that I am not quite sure of the specific allegation of scaremongering, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point and it is on the record.
We welcome the royal charter and the security it gives the BBC. In particular, I welcome the Government’s U-turn, as the consultation on the future of the BBC that they published in July 2015 was very different in tone and intention to the proposals before us now. We welcome the fact that the BBC’s funding settlement will now be decided every 11 years; it is particularly helpful to remove it from the five-year election cycle.
We welcome the settlement, but we know that an institution the size of the BBC can never be perfect. We believe the BBC has a responsibility to look and sound like Britain, both on screen and off. It should do far more to identify, employ and promote talent from every background and every walk of life. That means recruiting far more people from our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It means more women of every age in senior roles off screen and in leading roles on screen. It also means employing people from every social background.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Thinking about the pupils of Ashfield, I would like to make a practical suggestion. The BBC should go into schools in constituencies such as mine and tell pupils that work experience is open to them. Their parents pay the licence fee, so they should have the opportunity to work there.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that in the light of Ofcom’s new diversity obligations, the make-up of the UK population should be better reflected in terms of personnel and senior management?
Mr Watson
That is a very insightful point about something that we can work together to monitor.
I was talking about employing people from every social background. The BBC has a duty to reflect the nation it serves. That means informing and entertaining licence fee payers, as is set out in the charter, but the BBC must also do more to encourage and support British talent regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability or social background. It is well placed to do that because, almost uniquely, it has a strong and visible presence across the country. There are BBC studios in Birmingham, Bristol and Belfast. The BBC has offices in Leeds, Nottingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff and many more places too numerous to list. It has a duty to reach out to the communities on its doorstep.
The BBC has significantly expanded its apprenticeship programme. I commend director-general Tony Hall for that but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) points out, there is far more we can do. According to research carried out in 2015 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, over nine in 10 jobs in the creative economy are done by people in more advantaged socio-economic groups, compared with 66% of jobs in the wider economy. That has to change.
Mr Watson
Ministers are nodding in support of that, so I hope that they can reassure me that the new and explicit commitment to diversity will also cover social class. I grew up in an era when working class actors such as Michael Caine, Glenda Jackson and Julie Walters were giants of popular culture.
Mr Watson
I am; I am feeling it, anyway.
I have nothing against Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne—I admire their talent hugely and they are great ambassadors for our country—but we need more people like Julie Walters, Christopher Ecclestone and Paul McGann. And it should not fall to Lenny Henry and Idris Elba to be the face of the BBC’s diversity programme.
Matt Hancock
This is an appropriate point in the debate to underline the cross-party support for this direction of travel. The BBC knows that it has a lot more work to do. As the hon. Gentleman says, diversity is explicit in the charter, and that means diversity in all its forms: yes, protected characteristics such as ethnic background, gender and sexual orientation, but also social background—wherever people come from and from whatever walk of life.
Mr Watson
I welcome the Minister’s reassurance about that. We will work constructively with the Government to make sure there is a framework so that the BBC can actually achieve its targets. As Andrew Rajan wrote only last week:
“there have been decades of lip-service being paid in praise of diversity by the various gatekeepers of finance and programming, but nothing has changed at all”.
The BBC has published its own national target, which commits it to hiring 15% of staff from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups by 2020, but I am afraid it has a poor record on this. In its evidence to the Puttnam inquiry, the Campaign for Broadcasting Equality said that despite the BBC’s many diversity initiatives and programmes, it has consistently failed to meet its own targets. This cannot continue, so I welcome the Minister’s commitment to making sure that that does not happen.
The people we see on screen, the people who create what we see on our screens and the people who lead television must look more like the people we see on our streets. That means seeking out talent, on screen and off, from the black and minority ethnic communities. It means ensuring that roles do not mysteriously disappear for older women and it means creating roles that do not automatically exclude candidates with disabilities or mental health issues. The charter’s new commitment to diversity is welcome and Ofcom’s role as the BBC’s new regulator will be vital. It will help to bring about a truly diverse BBC that reflects the nation it serves. The point the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) makes is well taken. Will the Minister tell us how Ofcom will monitor and enforce its new diversity duty? Will it publish data about the number of BBC employees from minority groups? Will it monitor on-screen talent and publish information about where that is drawn from? Any detail that the Minister could provide today would be extremely helpful.
The charter introduces a host of other changes, some of which are more welcome than others. The National Audit Office already helps to ensure that the BBC delivers value for money to licence fee payers, so we have no objection in principle to extending its role so that it scrutinises the parts of the BBC that spend public money. We have some concerns, however, about the expansion of the NAO’s remit to cover parts of the BBC that are not directly funded by the licence fee, particularly BBC Worldwide. There might be a danger that allowing the NAO to access BBC Worldwide’s books could place it at a commercial disadvantage, so that risk will need to be addressed.
The charter attempts to resolve that possible problem by stating that the NAO cannot question any “creative or editorial judgements” on the grounds of value for money, but it also allows the NAO to define exactly what that phrase means. It will need to be defined more precisely in the charter in the future. Will the Minister be able to provide us with some comfort that it will not be interpreted too widely? An independent dispute resolution process needs to be established so that disagreements between the NAO and the BBC can be resolved.
We give cautious welcome to the proposal that Ofcom becomes the BBC’s regulator. I have already mentioned the critical role Ofcom will play in monitoring diversity, and it will also monitor distinctiveness and consult the industry on its new operating framework next year. Given the issues at stake, can the Minister confirm that Ofcom will also consult Parliament and the public about this matter? The BBC Trust struggled to reconcile its twin roles of the corporation’s regulator and its cheerleader. It is right that these two functions and responsibilities, which were often confusing and sometimes contradictory, are to be officially separated.
We welcome the fact that the majority of appointees to the BBC’s unitary board will now be drawn from the BBC, rather than being appointed by the Government. We note that that was not the Government’s original intention, but I commend them for performing a heel turn and pivot on that issue—Ed Balls would have been given a 10 from Len if he had managed to pull that off with such style. As Lord Foster of Bath said in the other place, the fact that the Government appoint the chair of the new BBC board and the chair of Ofcom raises questions about their independence. Does not the Secretary of State agree that one way of guaranteeing independence would be to require that every non-executive is independently appointed?
The new charter rewrites the BBC’s 90-year-old mission statement. The commitment to be “impartial and distinctive” has been added to the time-honoured duty to “inform, educate and entertain”. We need assurances from Ministers about that, because distinctiveness is poorly defined, and Ofcom has admitted that it is still working out exactly what it means. Distinctiveness is a vague notion, and there is a risk that the BBC’s commercial rivals could use it as a stick with which to beat the BBC whenever they wish.
Despite these reservations, I sense that this Secretary of State wants to create a new climate in which the future of the BBC can be discussed without political posturing. I do not think she wants to return to the days when David Cameron could describe the prospect of cuts to the nation’s favourite broadcaster as “delicious”. The new approach is welcome. As I said, I believe that the Secretary of State has the BBC’s best interests at heart. I can detect no desire on her part to use the BBC as a political football. I really hope those days are behind us. The aim of the charter settlement should be to give the BBC the space, time and resources it needs to adapt to huge technological change. That is the only way the BBC will remain relevant to a younger audience who are consuming content in myriad ways.
We will work with the Secretary of State to secure the future of the BBC. Let us hope that this is a new benign era for the Beeb. After all, when Government Ministers are loudly complaining about you in public; when Back-Bench Government MPs insist that you have an inbuilt left-wing bias; when Front-Bench Opposition MPs insist that you have an obvious right-wing bias; when the left-wing columnist, Owen Jones, says you are a threat to democracy; when the Foreign Secretary finds you infuriating; when politicians and activists of every stripe and persuasion think you are against them; when two thirds of the British public see you as a bastion of editorial excellence and journalistic integrity; and when the American public would rather get their news from you than from their own news sources, there is one thing the BBC can be sure of—it is doing things right. We should be proud of one of the nation’s greatest assets.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the publication of both the draft charter and now the agreement. This is the culmination of a process that started a year ago with the publication of the consultation paper on the future of the BBC. As both Front-Bench spokespeople have mentioned, that produced a very wide-ranging and voluminous response, ranging from the 192,000 people who responded by email or letter to a number of luminaries of the creative industries who wrote to defend the BBC against the threat that they saw, but that I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) pointed out, never really existed.
Karen Bradley
I just want to put on record my thanks for the amazing work that my right hon. Friend did as Secretary of State. It was a joy to come into the job and find such comprehensive and technically excellent work done on the charter, which really puts the BBC on an excellent footing. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for that.
Mr Whittingdale
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is gratifying, and it is a positive sign, that the charter and the agreement essentially reflect the contents of the White Paper, which was the result of a great deal of work. At the time, it was very much welcomed by the BBC as putting it on a sound footing for the future. I believe that that is the case and that the charter and the agreement are, if anything, a bit tougher on the BBC than the White Paper was. The changes made to the charter and agreement go further—in ways that I welcome. Indeed, I might have recommended myself the changes to the salaries publication regime, whereby the Government have decided that it is right to publish the salaries of not only those earning over £450,000, but over £150,000.
The issues that attracted perhaps most comment when the White Paper came out—they have featured in the debate we have had thus far—are the independence and the governance structure of the BBC. The governance structure was widely recognised by Members of all parties as having failed. The BBC Trust had virtually no defenders. When I chaired the Select Committee, we produced a robust report, saying that the trust model did not work. The Lords Communications Committee also produced a report making precisely the same point. The idea that the BBC should have a management executive and then this arm’s length body, which was part of the BBC but not in the BBC, was simply a recipe for confusion, leading to a succession of problems, including severance payments, the appointment and then departure of the director-general within a space of 54 days and huge wastes of money such as the digital media initiative, which cost the licence fee payer over £100 million.
We asked David Clementi to come up with a recommendation for a new governance structure, and he came back with the one that most people had always felt was the right solution—a strong unitary board with external governance from Ofcom. Then the debate was about the appointments made to that management board—the unitary board—and whether the Government should have a role in it.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) reads some sinister meaning into paragraph 4 of the agreement, where it says that the independence of the BBC’s appointments is important, but nevertheless has to take account of external factors. Let me explain that that particular paragraph is word-for-word identical to the paragraph in the agreement published in 2006, when the Labour Government were in office. It simply translates the same provision from 2006 into the new agreement. So if there was a sinister purpose, it was the creation of the hon. Lady’s party, not that of the present Government.
There was then a debate about the fact that, obviously, the unitary board was a more powerful and directly responsible body than the trust. It was recognised, I think, that it was right for the appointment of the chairman to remain a Government appointment, although my own view was that because the board was such a new creation there should be an open competition, and that was the view that the new Secretary of State and the new Prime Minister subsequently reached following the publication of a report by the Select Committee. I think that that was probably the right decision.
The Government appoint the four independent directors, each of whom will represent or speak for one of the nations of the United Kingdom, and, as has been pointed out, the BBC will appoint five non-executive directors. Even the Government’s appointments will, however, be made through the public appointments process. As I have said, they will not be in the majority. Perhaps most crucially of all, the unitary board will not have a role in editorial decision-making, although it will have a role in reaching judgments about complaints post-transmission. That crucial safeguard will ensure that those people cannot be accused of political interference.
I find it extraordinary, I must say, that all the people who suggested that the creation of the board somehow constituted a threat to the independence of the BBC—although, as was pointed out, it would have no involvement in editorial decision-making—have been strangely silent about what strikes me as a more dangerous precedent: the appointment of James Purnell as director of radio and education. When the BBC appointed James Purnell as director of strategy in 2013, just three years after he ceased to be a Labour Member of Parliament and about five years after he ceased to be Secretary of State, I questioned the director-general about the appointment in the Select Committee. I asked him whether he could think of any precedent for the assuming of a management role in the BBC by someone who was not just politically affiliated, but had been a very active party politician. He could not do so, but he did say this to the Select Committee:
“I think the key thing is—James’s job of course is not editorial”.
James Purnell has now become director of radio and education. As director of radio, he has overall responsibility for the output of a large amount of BBC content, and it is impossible to say that he has no involvement in editorial decisions. Indeed, we are told that he has been groomed as a potential candidate for the job of director-general, a position which, of course, is also that of chief editor of the BBC.
I like James Purnell. We get on well, we have robust discussions, and we agree about quite a lot. I have absolutely no doubt that James Purnell is absolutely committed to the impartiality of the BBC, just as I am; I merely suggest that if I, as a former Secretary of State, were to be invited, in a few years’ time, to take on a management role in the BBC—[Hon. Members: “I’d back you!”] I suspect that, despite the support that I might enjoy from some on my own side, it would give rise to howls of outrage, and I do not think it would be appropriate. This is not to criticise James Purnell, but his appointment does establish a very dangerous precedent, which is far more of a direct threat to independence than the appointment of the non-executive, independent directors.
Helen Goodman
The right hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. What it all goes to show is that more appointments of this kind should be made through independent processes, and that is precisely our criticism of the new board structure. The right hon. Gentleman has just given another example in which the independence comes into doubt.
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Lady has made an interesting point. The Government have no involvement in the appointment of management executives in the BBC, and—this is another issue—we understand that, just as there was no competition when James Purnell was appointed director of strategy, there was no advertisement or external competition for this particular post. However, that is a matter for the BBC. It is something that the Select Committee has previously questioned quite vigorously, and although I am no longer a member of the Select Committee, my successors may well wish to take it up with the director-general in the future. I hope that they will.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that James Purnell had a career in the media before becoming a Member of Parliament—he was a special adviser at No. 10 in that area—and that there is a general view that he has done a very good job? He is a good friend of mine, but is not the real purpose of advertising to ensure that we do not just get white men who are hand-picked for such jobs? That must be the criticism, rather than, necessarily, James Purnell’s own background and the expertise that he clearly possesses.
Mr Whittingdale
I am not sure that the fact that James Purnell was a member of Tony Blair’s policy unit is hugely reassuring to me. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the need for diversity, it has already been covered in the debate, and I absolutely sign up to it. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged and welcomed the fact that we have included it in the BBC’s public purposes for the first time. I think that the BBC is committed to trying to increase diversity, but, as has already been said, there is more to be done.
Damian Collins
The appointment of James Purnell to his new role is important not just in relation to James Purnell himself, but in relation to the process. This is one of the most senior positions in the BBC, and there is no internal or external advertising of that position. There is a great deal of criticism of the way in which BBC executives are appointed and how much they are paid, and an element of transparency and competition is important in that context.
Mr Whittingdale
I entirely agree that that is an important issue, but I think that the issue of the political precedent is, if anything, even more important. People complained vigorously about the suggestion that the Government might appoint, as non-executive independent directors, people who might be political friends. That caused howls. This, however, is not an independent position. It is not a non-editorial position. It is a position within the management executive which involves responsibility for editorial content. Obviously, it is a much more directly responsible position, and it is therefore even more important that it should be politically independent.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
This, of course, makes it all the more remarkable that when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, Rona Fairhead was appointed chair of the new BBC board by the Prime Minister with—as we subsequently discovered—absolutely no competition, and behind closed doors.
Mr Whittingdale
She was originally appointed following a very open and widespread competition when she became chairman of the BBC Trust. Obviously that post was advertised, there were a number of candidates, and the process was subject to the full public appointments procedure. The fact that the then Prime Minister and I told the House that it was felt that she could serve during the transition following a transfer to the new position is a matter of public record. However, as I said earlier, I think that the later decision that it would be better to put the post out to open competition was the correct one.
Maria Eagle
The BBC may or may not have made a mistake in the way in which it appointed a particular individual—James Purnell, about whom the right hon. Gentleman has been talking—but it made that decision as an independent organisation. Is not the difficulty that we face, and the issue of political interference, caused by the fact that we in this place seek to control? When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, it was argued that the appointment of a majority of board members by the Government of the day was a matter of concern, because it was felt that there would be a route for political interference from this place and from the Government, rather than the BBC’s making its own mistakes—or not; as it may or may not do.
Mr Whittingdale
That was obviously a separate debate. I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, but I do not agree with her. Even under the original suggestion, the BBC would have had a majority when the non-executive and executive board members were taken together. Moreover, as I sought to point out, the non-executive members will have been through the public appointments process. They will have had to demonstrate their competence and qualifications for the role, which most people regard as a pretty good safeguard. Of course, the BBC Trust, which the board replaces, was wholly appointed by the Government, so this is quite a big shift.
Sammy Wilson
Apart from the political connotations of the appointment, does the right hon. Gentleman not find it even more bizarre that, because of either the perceived inexperience of the appointee or other internal factors, the BBC has had to create another management post to support Mr Purnell, with a salary of more than the Prime Minister’s, at a time when it says it has no money?
Mr Whittingdale
Again, the hon. Gentleman raises some valid points. There are a number of curiosities about this appointment. As I indicated earlier, I am sure the Select Committee will want to think about some of them when the director-general next appears before it.
I want to touch on a couple of other aspects of the agreement and charter, which, as I have said, I very much welcome. The introduction of distinctiveness as a key requirement for the BBC is important. It is right that an organisation that enjoys £4 billion of public money should not be competing with the independent sector, and that it should look different from the commercial sector in television and, just as importantly, in radio. I hope that putting that in and then having Ofcom adjudicate it will make a difference.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I agree on the distinctiveness point, because the BBC receives this public money, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the distinctiveness should go across all the channels, as opposed to the BBC just putting some distinctive programmes on certain niche channels? It should be spread across the whole range of the BBC, not just concentrated on a small element of it, leaving the major channels free not to be as distinctive as arguably they should be.
Mr Whittingdale
I agree, and it will ultimately be for Ofcom to decide whether the BBC is meeting that requirement. I do not think it should be applied to every individual programme, but each channel should be able to demonstrate that it is markedly different from an equivalent commercial channel. That should apply to radio as well as the mainstream TV channels. That is a significant change.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, did he ever look into the disproportionate amount of money distributed to the regions in comparison with London? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that some of the regions are very concerned about that.
Mr Whittingdale
I understand that, and there are particular regions—and indeed nations—that feel underserved and hard-done-by. In my view, the BBC made a good move in transferring a lot of its production and facilities to Salford—I was in favour of the establishment of the Media City in Salford—but that was not sufficient for the BBC to then sit back and say, “Right, we’ve done our bit for the English regions; we don’t have to worry any longer.” The west midlands has felt underserved, as has been debated in this House, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson), speaking for the Scottish National party, will talk about the provision of the service, and indeed employment and production, in Scotland. This is a live issue, and I believe the BBC needs to do more.
I want to touch briefly on two particular policy developments that I promoted and remain keen on. The first is the public service content fund. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) talked about the underspend on the provision for broadband and what will happen to it. I hope it will go to establish the public service content fund, which will provide programming in areas that are currently underserved, of which children’s television is certainly an example. It will be administered outside the BBC.
Mr Whittingdale
I very much hope that there will not be additional bureaucracy. The precise way of administering it will need to be worked out. There is a valuable consequence of this: this is a very small pot of money, but it will mean that there is an alternative route—other than the BBC—for the obtaining of funding from the public purse for public service content. At present, the BBC has a monopoly in commissioning content with public money. That is in large part necessary, but it is worth exploring this alternative route.
Mr Watson
My memory is not great and I have only been reading into the brief for 10 days, but I think that the figure is about £60 million. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that being an ongoing demand on the BBC, or will it be a one-off pot as a result of the underspend?
Mr Whittingdale
Where the money is coming from has been identified: it is coming from the underspend, as the hon. Gentleman flagged up in his remarks, and that is obviously over a set period; it is not ongoing. We will judge the success of it. It will be to some extent for the BBC to decide whether it is a success, and also for the Government to decide, but I am content that, certainly for the next three years, it is in place.
The other innovation I am very committed to, and to which the director-general has given a lot of support, is the provision for the BBC to support local media through the establishment of local news reporting and the buying-in of content. The purpose of that is first to address an extremely serious issue: the decline of local media and the consequences of that for local accountability and democracy. This alone is not going to solve that as it is a very big issue, but it is a recognition that the BBC has taken content from local newspapers often without even attributing it to the local paper, let alone giving any money for it. This will ensure that local newspapers continue to cover local institutions—local councils, courts proceedings and so forth, which are extremely important for the functioning of local democracy. It seems to me a legitimate use of the licence fee to do this and I welcome the support the BBC has given to the move. It is important that the BBC should not directly employ these people: if it turned out that a local newspaper could reduce their employment even more because the BBC would pick up and employ those people, it would further harm local media rather than helping. The important thing is that, through a tendering process, the BBC establishes a relationship in each area with a local media organisation—it does not need to be a newspaper; it could be a radio or television station—and supports it in ensuring that there is proper coverage of local political issues. That is new, and I hope it will help to sustain local media and local democracy in this country.
Finally, I want to touch on the future of the licence fee. I think I have been quoted in the past as saying that the licence fee was worse than the poll tax. When I said that, it was simply an observation that the licence fee is a flat-rate charge payable by every household and, unlike the community charge, no help is available even for those on very low incomes. It was simply an observation of that. The licence fee has many flaws—it is regressive, it is hard to collect, and there is the iPlayer loophole enabling people to evade it, which we are now closing—but I think the Government are right that for this charter period the licence fee should continue. The speed of change in the way that people receive television is very fast and there may well come a moment when the technology has advanced so that the old argument that everybody consumes the BBC in one form or another is no longer true. Also, if television is distributed via the internet, which is coming and I believe will eventually be the universal method of distribution, that will be the moment when it is possible to experiment with things like conditional access subscriptions. I therefore welcome the fact that the BBC has agreed to put a small toe into the water and use the iPlayer perhaps to supply some additional content on a voluntary subscription basis. That is a small step, but it will shed light on our potentially one day moving towards a voluntary system of subscription to the BBC. The technology does not permit that now, and I do not think it is appropriate now, but I welcome the fact that the BBC has agreed to make that first small step.
I conclude by saying once again that I believe the draft agreement and charter represent a sound foundation for the future of the BBC. I would like to take some small credit, despite all those who told me I was hell-bent on destruction. That was not the case, and I hope this proves it.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I beg to move the amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The BBC is one of the most important and influential cultural, social, economic and democratic institutions in our country, and I welcome this opportunity to debate its future further. I think we all agree on many things, including how important the BBC is, but there is also significant agreement on the areas in which we criticise it.
The new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), illustrated very effectively how worried many of us are about the lack of diversity in the organisation, and the debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on diversity in the BBC won widespread agreement throughout the House. There is a shocking shortage of senior black and minority figures at the very top of the BBC. We all believe that the BBC should reflect the nation. When we turn on the television, the nation should be reflected back at us, but too often it is not. We do not see enough black and minority faces on screen. There are also not enough lesbian and gay people in senior management positions or, more importantly, on screen as authority figures, where they should be seen. I have made this point before. The BBC has always been absolutely fantastic at attracting gay people into comedy roles and on to gameshows, but they are not the authority figures who present the news, as they should be.
Mrs Helen Grant
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but does he agree that off-screen and back-office representation is just as important?
John Nicolson
Indeed I do. That is a very fair point. The BBC would probably argue it has been effective at hiring minority figures backstage and at the more junior levels, but the real problem arises when it comes to promotion. That is very obvious when we see the most senior presenters on screen or when we are in meetings with the most senior management figures. The BBC clearly has to address these concerns as a matter of urgency. It is great at setting targets, but it is not so good at actually delivering them. They are often set years in advance, and by the time we get to the end stage, we have all forgotten what the target was in the first place, so it sets new targets for us to get excited about. It is time for that to stop. It is time for the BBC to deliver.
I associate myself with the widespread criticism of the agreement over the licence fee for the over-75s. That deal was done in secret between BBC managers and the Government. When Tony Hall appeared before us in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, he told us that his staff were delighted with the deal. I had to pinch myself. Anyone who has spent a nanosecond talking to any of the BBC’s staff knows that they thought it was absolutely disastrous because of the effect it will have on programme-making budgets. Also, importantly, it is not the role of the BBC to deliver social provision. The BBC is a broadcaster. It is the Government’s role to deliver social provision. This was clearly not a satisfactory development, and it is one that we deplore.
I suggest that the BBC management should have taken a leaf out of Channel 4’s book. When faced with a deal that did not look as though it will be good for them, they should have phoned a couple of politicians who were on their side to see whether they could intervene on their behalf, rather than negotiating in secret. That negotiation turned out to be disastrous because they were not that good at doing deals behind closed doors. If they had asked their pals for a bit of assistance, they might have done better.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about those negotiations. To be fair to the BBC, however, the blame lies with the Government, who took the BBC to the brink and then offered it a deal that it had no choice but to accept.
John Nicolson
Except, of course, that the previous director-general, when faced with precisely this threat, threatened to resign. The Government blinked first on that occasion. The BBC has enormous power if it plays its cards well.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the BBC probably breathed a sigh of relief at getting off so lightly in that deal? It now has an increased licence fee and a five-year review, which probably means nothing, but it has had enough money this year to increase its wage bill by £21 million.
John Nicolson
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about BBC salaries, and I shall say more about that later. They are ludicrously inflated at senior levels. The director-general often says, “We pay these huge salaries because that is the going rate in the outside world.” The BBC does not actually know that, however, because nobody ever wants to put it to the test by leaving a senior post in the BBC. They know that they will never achieve such high salaries in the outside world. I asked the director-general if he had ever conducted a study on what his senior staff got when they left the BBC and went into the industry outside. He told me that he had never conducted such a study.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that in any other business, whatever it might be—even local government—those outside salary levels would be tested. The market is always tested when setting salaries.
John Nicolson
That is precisely the point I made to the director-general. I asked him whether he had tested this, given that he always argued that he was paying the going rate. His answer was that he had not tested it, so his whole argument for paying people ludicrously inflated salaries fell with that one answer.
As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) predicted, I am now going to talk about Scotland. It has been clear for a significant period of time that the BBC is not delivering for Scotland in the way that it should be. Audience satisfaction ratings show that Scots do not feel that the corporation fully represents their views and interests. Appreciation measures in Scotland are lower than the average for the rest of the UK, and people in Scotland think that the BBC is poorer at representing their lives in news, current affairs and drama, compared with people in other parts of the UK. Members do not have to take my word for that; the BBC fully acknowledges that problem.
We on the Scottish National party Benches here in Westminster and our colleagues in Holyrood and the Scottish Government are committed to high-quality, well-resourced public service broadcasting, and we want a BBC charter that allows this. Charter renewal has been a valuable opportunity to provide a framework for the BBC that enables it to maintain its important role as a public service broadcaster, to improve its performance for Scottish and UK audiences and to provide further support for the Scottish production sector and those in our wider creative industries. For the first time, the Scottish Government and Holyrood have had a formal role in the charter renewal process, following the recommendations of the Smith commission. The SNP has delivered a clear and consistent message on the straightforward changes we believe would help to transform the BBC in Scotland for the better. We welcome a number of elements in the charter, but it is vital that the BBC now delivers.
The SNP has argued that the BBC needs an enforceable licence service agreement for Scotland and a dedicated board member for Scotland. There are clear reasons for this. A Scottish board would allow BBC Scotland to have greater control over its budget and to be given meaningful commissioning powers. The charter accepts SNP proposals for the BBC to report on its impact on the creative industries for the first time, but it does not make provisions for a fairer share of the licence fee raised in Scotland to be spent in Scotland. Such a provision could deliver up to an additional £100 million of investment annually in those creative industries. We welcome the commitment to continued support for the Gaelic language, but the Secretary of State refrained from going just a little further and moving towards parity with the Welsh channel S4C for MG Alba, as recommended by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I serve.
The Select Committee supports many of the wider proposals in the draft charter. We welcome the abolition of the BBC Trust and its replacement by a unitary board, although, as I suggested in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Maldon, we were alarmed to see what I will gently describe as the rather relaxed method of selection for the new chair, when Rhona Fairhead moved seamlessly from her old job as chair of the BBC Trust to her new job as chair of the unitary board. The right hon. Gentleman said that the transition period was important because, to paraphrase slightly, the transition meant that she was effectively continuing in the same job. However, Ms Fairhead herself said that it was a completely different job, which is precisely why it should have been subject to open competition, rather than having arisen from a cosy chat between her and the Prime Minister, with no civil servants present. I discovered that during a heated Select Committee cross-examination that resulted in Ms Fairhead accepting that she should perhaps go.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman had a go at the director-general earlier, but Rona Fairhead should have been screaming blue murder when the Government were forcing their settlement on her. The whole point of her post is that she is meant to be independent and able to say to the Government, “No. You will not do this.”
John Nicolson
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is precisely Ms Fairhead’s role and precisely why many of us found it disturbing that she had been appointed without open competition. What was the quid pro quo for getting a job such as that with no competition? She would have to be truly saintly not to feel slightly beholden to the people who had appointed her in that way.
Scotland’s frustrations with the BBC often focus on the provision of news, which is why I have led the calls for a new Scottish Six. The national news programme, “Reporting Scotland”, is treated as a regional news programme under current arrangements. It is under-resourced and cannot report on news outwith Scotland’s borders. The current six o’clock news does not work in the post-devolution age. Scottish viewers often have to sit through stories on devolved issues that are of no relevance to them, such as English health or English policing. It is a blast from the past and it needs to change.
Ian Murray
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something about the bit in his amendment about the Scottish Six? During the BBC charter statement last month, the Secretary of State said that
“it is for the BBC, which has operational independence in this matter, to determine how exactly”—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 1060.]
the Scottish Six would happen. The hon. Gentleman tweeted shortly afterwards:
“Good to hear Secretary of State confirm #ScottishSix is a matter for the BBC not government.”
Does the amendment not push the Government to make a decision about the Scottish Six, rather than leaving it in the hands of the editorial commissioning of the BBC, which he has been arguing for in the rest of his speech?
John Nicolson
The hon. Gentleman confuses structure with editorial policy. It is perfectly reasonable for any of us to argue that there should be devolution of broadcasting and structural changes. That is why the all-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee came out unanimously in favour of a separate Scottish Six. It did not presume to tell the editors of a Scottish Six what the content should be. That is an editorial matter. Simply to recommend and advance the cause of the Scottish Six is structural, not editorial. It is important not to confuse the two.
Ian Murray
I want to press this matter, because the Scottish Six is an incredibly important issue in Scottish broadcasting. I am undecided on whether it is a good thing, because I want good-quality Scottish news rather than a forced programme that may not be of the quality that people would expect, but that is a funding issue and a different argument. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that whether BBC Scotland initiates a Scottish Six is an editorial judgment for the BBC or a policy judgment for charter renewal?
John Nicolson
That is a good question. I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman that this subject has been party political for too long. I am a former journalist. I believe in independent journalism and want to see more jobs in journalism and want Scottish news to prosper. I have always found a certain irony here because people often say in Scottish political debate that there is not enough scrutiny of the Scottish Government. I do not know whether I agree or disagree with that, but that is what some say, particularly those in the Labour party. I am arguing for an hour-long programme in which the Scottish Government can be scrutinised for a full hour. That has to be a good thing. It would provide more opportunities for opposition politicians and more jobs. Crucially, I have talked to the journalists and it is also something that BBC Scotland wants.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is that not an argument for the people of South Leicestershire and the other parts of the United Kingdom to hear about the Scottish Government’s failures? Is it not an argument for more Scots news on the UK’s main news, rather than for a separate news bulletin?
John Nicolson
I fear that that is cloud cuckoo land. While I would not presume for one moment to tell the network editors what they should put on the news, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that if somebody stood up at a newsroom editorial meeting and said, “You know what? I think we should have a 10-minute report on Scottish politics for the viewers of South Leicestershire,” I suspect that they would not get very far.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
This is a matter of equality. Welsh speakers in Wales have news programmes specifically for them about Welsh and international matters, but 80% of non-Welsh speakers in Wales do not get the same thing through their screens. I am sure that the same issues arise in Scotland.
John Nicolson
The hon. Lady makes a good point. There is a bit of irony here, because I looked at the Daily Mail after the Select Committee came out in favour of a separate Scottish Six and it condemned the decentralisation of broadcasting on a front page that was itself devolved. The Daily Mail does not run the same front page in Scotland as in the rest of the UK because it knows that the news priorities are different.
Mr Watson
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I have not been party political about the Scottish six o’clock news and have never thought about it in detail—I am the new kid—but I am trying to understand whether his position has changed. When I was doing my homework, I found a question from him to the Secretary of State in a recent debate in which he said:
“Does the Secretary of State agree that the matter of a separate ‘Scottish Six’ is entirely the responsibility of the BBC”?—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 1060.]
The hon. Gentleman seems to contradict that in his speech this afternoon. Has his thinking changed?
John Nicolson
I am delighted to explain. In answer to my questions, both the former and current Secretaries of State said that, while agreeing that Scotland was under-served and accepting the BBC’s analysis that it is not trusted in Scotland, the job of news was to bring the nation together. I do not believe that it is. The job of the BBC is to report without fear or favour and to provide the best possible news for its viewers, rather than acting as a cheerleader for one constitutional settlement or another. The BBC should devolve as much as possible. I believe in the concept of a separate Scottish Six. Politicians should stand back and allow the BBC to decide the form and content of that programme—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) wants to ask me a question, he is free to, but if he mumbles, I cannot hear him.
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Gentleman once again for his generosity. Was it not SNP activists who bullied BBC Scotland during the Scottish independence referendum debate, alleging that the editorial content on its news programmes was biased?
John Nicolson
There was a vigorous debate in Scotland in which both sides accused each other—[Interruption.] I heard the hon. Gentleman; he does not have to repeat himself. Both sides accused each other of bullying. The BBC said that it should have learned lessons from the referendum campaign, and there is an important argument about exactly how the BBC should cover referendums. The coverage when there is a binary choice should be different from that during a multi-party election and I think the BBC accepts that it covered the referendum campaign like a general election rather than a binary choice. The BBC got itself into a bit of a fankle because it said—defending itself immediately as it tends to do—that there were no lessons to learn and that no mistakes were made. Almost immediately after, however, it said that it must learn the lessons of the Scottish referendum campaign for the way in which it covered the European Union referendum campaign. That is intellectually incoherent; it cannot say, “Our coverage was perfect,” and at the same time say, “We will learn the lessons from the previous campaign.”
John Nicolson
I would like to move on to the next part of my speech, so I will not take the intervention.
The important thing for all of us is to remember that BBC Radio Scotland and BBC Alba have been doing exactly what is being proposed—for decades in the case of BBC Radio Scotland; they have a grown-up running order, where the UK’s, Scotland’s or the world’s most important story that night leads the news. All of us therefore have to think about how we would feel if we opened a newspaper and it contained only Welsh stories, only English stories or only Scottish stories. Such a newspaper would be most peculiar, yet this is the position in which the BBC finds itself in Scotland.
I believe that our proposal would present new opportunities for the talented and skilled professionals in Scotland. It would create new jobs and open new horizons. It would bring investment and assist BBC Scotland in building its reputation as a high-quality broadcaster. Of course, it is also vital that we recognise that this is what the BBC staff want. The editor of “Reporting Scotland”, Andrew Browne, has said that they are “really keen” to see a separate Scottish Six and that he would love to take this programme forward. He said:
“It’s got world news, it’s got Scottish news, it’s got UK news, it’s something we can do. Any journalist would want to work on a programme like that.”
However, he added the following caveat:
“It’s for people much higher up in the BBC to decide whether or not this is the right direction to go with for news.”
Meanwhile STV saw a gap in the market and, while the BBC anguished, probably worrying about what politicians thought in a way that it should not, it has outflanked the BBC by announcing a Scottish Seven, to be launched in 2017.
There lies a problem at the heart of BBC Scotland: without a fairer share of the licence fee, without greater control of its own budget and without the authority to make commissioning decisions, BBC Scotland too often relies on the decisions of executives in London—invariably—granting it permission over what it can and cannot do. Meaningful editorial and financial control must be transferred north of the border. The opportunity to invest in people and in our creative industries must be realised. Maximum devolution of broadcasting to Scotland is necessary to deliver the high-quality, well-resourced public service broadcasting sector that Scotland deserves.
Ian Murray
I am very grateful, as the hon. Gentleman has been incredibly generous with his time. We want to support your motion, so will you give clarity about what it actually says? Are you saying that a Scottish Six, in the BBC News Scotland context, is an editorial decision for the BBC in Scotland—I hope that is what the motion says—or that you are looking to make this a policy decision in the charter? The latter would not be desirable, and I think he is arguing the same.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. A lot of people are using the word “you” when they mean hon. Members. I gently remind people that when they say “you,” they are referring to the Chair.
John Nicolson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important that there should not be political interference in the decision about whether or not there is a separate Scottish Six. I have made this point repeatedly. I am encouraging the BBC to continue fearlessly with its current proposals, to continue with the pilots and to provide jobs and investment in the way that it wants to do and that its staff want to do. The BBC is rich in talent and creativity. Its strength is its extraordinary workforce. We have, in the course of our charter deliberations, made clear our passionate support for public service broadcasting. Where we have offered criticism, we hope we have been constructive, and much of our criticism has been accepted by the BBC. We urge it now to translate its aspirations into delivery.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech he attempted to move the amendment, but he was speaking to the motion. He will be called to move the amendment formally at the end of the debate.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Much of today’s debate will doubtless focus on issues such as governance, compliance, regulation, independence, distinctiveness and financial stability, but I wish to use my time to raise again an issue that is far too often pushed to the margins: diversity and equal opportunities.
Last week, I attended the launch of the BBC’s “Black and British” season. It was at a hotel in Soho and it was well attended. The event gave us a glimpse of some bold, vibrant stories, intended to overturn various misconceptions and to challenge the orthodox. The aim was also to show what it really means to be black and British today. I must admit that when I arrived I was a little sceptical, but when I left I was a little emotional, because I had been taken on a journey back to the ’40s, ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, and then forward into the future, with a documentary speculating on whether we will ever have a black Prime Minister, by some brilliant, diverse writers, presenters, broadcasters, directors and producers. I think I witnessed the BBC operating at its very best, and I felt very proud of the institution and proud to be British. I felt excited about the future.
This desire and commitment to have even greater diversity at the BBC seems very genuine, and pretty well reflected in the draft charter and agreement, but there are three areas where clarification from the Secretary of State or the Minister for Digital and Culture, either in the wind-up or later in writing, would be helpful. I also wish to make one or two remarks about Ofcom.
First, although the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has published helpful information sheets on a large number of policy areas, no information sheet appears to have been produced on diversity and equal opportunities. I therefore ask the Secretary of State or her Minister to look into providing a comparable document as soon as possible.
Secondly, the draft charter states:
“The BBC must ensure it reflects the diverse communities of the whole of the United Kingdom in the content of its output, the means by which its output and services are delivered (including where its activities are carried out and by whom) and in the organisation and management of the BBC.”
Will the Secretary of State or her Minister please confirm that that diversity requirement applies to on-screen and off-screen employment from all suppliers, both internal and independent?
Thirdly, the agreement requires the BBC to promote equal opportunities in relation to disability, race and sex; to make people aware of its arrangements to achieve that; to review the arrangements; and to publish a report at least once a year on the “effectiveness of the arrangements”. On that latter requirement, I respectfully ask the Secretary of State and her Minister to pay special attention to the word “effectiveness”, because we need to know what works and what does not work. Too often in my life—in my experience both as a lawyer and a politician in this place—I have heard institutions boast good practice or best practice, but then found that good practice or best practice do not mean effective action, and we really do need effective action here.
Finally, Ofcom as a regulator is responsible for ensuring that the BBC’s diversity requirements are realised. I confess that in the past I have not been overly impressed by Ofcom’s response to statutory equality duties, but it now has a new chief executive officer who has promised a harder-edged approach to diversity. She has also mentioned quotas and, if necessary, ring-fenced funding. I hope that Sharon White’s words are reflected in action, and I shall watch very carefully.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Lady is making a characteristically powerful speech. Given the diversity of the population under the age of 18, does she agree that it is particularly important that we have a home-grown capacity for making children’s programmes so that the programmes that children watch reflect the communities in which they live?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I would be extremely interested to look into that sort of idea.
On the basis that transparency drives diversity, I also hope that Sharon White will require full publication of the BBC’s diversity data, with Ofcom providing commentary and the essential evaluation.
Many people listening to this debate today have worked so, so hard for years to advance diversity in the arts and creative industries. There is still much to do and still a way to go, but I do feel that we are on the brink of some real progress. I therefore take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former Culture Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and to all those committed individuals both inside and outside Parliament such as Simon Albury of the Campaign for Broadcasting Equality who never seemed to give up.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
May I begin by saying to colleagues around the Chamber that, since I stood down from the Front Bench in June, I have agreed to take on the secretaryship of the all-party parliamentary group on the BBC?
I welcome the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for Digital and Culture to their places. Both of them are new to the job but not to government. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) for his debut at the Dispatch Box in this role, and I wish him well.
Although the new Ministers have come late to the process of BBC charter renewal, it is now for them to finish off all the work that has been done so far. I am glad to see that some of the more lurid fantasies of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), whom I am really pleased to see in his place, will be well and truly finished off by the time the new charter becomes operational.
I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister have realised already the incredibly high esteem in which the BBC is held by our constituents, who pay for and consume its services, and the concomitant interest and campaigning about the process of charter renewal. There is a wish around the country, the nations and the regions that the Government get this charter right.
Let me give the Government some credit—not something I often do. The end result looks like it will be better than many of us had feared. Let me also be clear that one or two concerns remain, and I will come on to mention them in my remarks.
When we consider the future of the BBC, we should always keep in mind both its great history at the centre of our national life—Members do that when they make contributions to this debate—and the fact that it is one of our most loved institutions. It is behind only the monarch, our armed forces and the national health service in the esteem in which it is held, so loved and valued it most certainly is.
The consultation on the Green Paper as part of the charter renewal process review simply reiterated the extent to which that is so. Those of us who knock on the doors of our constituents and try to get them to approve of what we do in our jobs can only look on in awe at an 81% approval rating—81% of the public believe that the BBC does a good job. We would all wish for such a high level of approval from those for whom we seek to work. That high approval rate is combined with the fact that a very high number of people in this country—some 97%—consume BBC services for an average of 18 hours a week. That is an impressive set of figures, which we should all bear in mind when we consider the future of the BBC.
The public have taken part in the charter review period, in so far as they have been able, by way of the consultation on the Green Paper. As the Secretary of State mentioned in her own remarks, some 192,000 people have replied. Three quarters of them believed that the BBC should remain independent, and two thirds that the BBC has a positive wider impact on the market and that BBC expansion is justified. The BBC is also a lynchpin of our creative industries, and our broader creative industries, in the whole of the UK. It allows us to punch well above our weight as a nation in exporting creative output to the rest of the world, as well as being a key component in the soft power on which even our new Foreign Secretary has commented as he starts to get to grips with his new role. Both of those things are even more important after the referendum on 23 June than they were before when the former Secretary of State and I were both still in our places on the Front Bench. We all should be able to agree—I am sure we will—on how lucky we are as a nation to have the BBC. We should use the charter renewal process to make it fit for the future and enable it to continue doing the job that it is doing.
Maria Eagle
Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just come back to his place.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Lady talks about how popular the BBC is, and she is completely right, but when 75% of UK adults rely on the BBC for a large amount of their news does she agree that it is very, very important that the BBC is, and is seen to be, impartial?
Maria Eagle
I do agree with that, but it is also important that the BBC is the judge of impartiality and is held to account for it. We should not be able to override it from this Chamber, because we—on both sides of the House—are not impartial.
A good charter must guarantee that the BBC’s editorial independence is beyond doubt. It must guarantee that the BBC’s financial independence will continue and it has to help it to fulfil its mission to educate, inform and entertain. That is the yardstick by which we should judge this charter.
The 11-year length of the charter is a good thing because that provides stability and takes the next review out of the political cycle into which Parliament’s passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had suddenly pitched it. I am, however, still a little concerned that the mid-term review—it will presumably take place after five and a half years—or health check, as Ministers have imaginatively dubbed it, might be deeply destabilising if there is a will in government to exploit that process.
We have been reassured that this will not be a mini-charter review, as is feared. The Minister in the other place, Lord Ashton of Hyde, said that it would consider only governance and regulation, not the scope and scale of the BBC. However, halfway through the charter, a change in governance and regulation from the current proposals could leave things looking very different from how they do at present. When the Minister replies to the debate, will he give us some reassurance about the kind of change that he envisages this mid-charter review—or health check or mid-term review—might seek to make?
The Minister in the other place said that Ofcom will
“have to stand the test of time and prove itself”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2016; Vol. 774, c. 1995.]
Might this mini-charter review lead to Ofcom being stripped of its regulatory function, if it does not stand up to some test that that Minister seemed to be setting for it? Precisely what kind of review does the Minister for Digital and Culture envisage? When he responds about Ofcom, can he give us the assurance that the Secretary of State did not quite give me in my intervention on her about the resources that Ofcom will be given to carry out its considerably extended role? The right hon. Lady did not say that Ofcom would be given new resources or the resources of the existing trust. We need to know what resources Ofcom will have to do the important and completely new job that it is given under the charter.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Lady is extremely generous in giving way; I thank her for indulging me. We will have a new regulatory regime for the BBC. Ofcom will replace the BBC Trust, in which there was no trust. We talk about a health check. If I went to the doctor for a health check and he found that I had some horrible disease, I would expect him to take action. I would expect the Government to take action if, at the health check, the new regulatory regime was found not to be working.
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman employs an extended metaphor. I do not quite understand how that would apply in respect of the mid-term review. I do not know why the mid-term review was not simply dropped. It seems to me that Ministers have been casting about to try to find some purpose for it because they did not want to accept that the mid-term review or the break clause had started out as something different from how it ended up. I am not sure what the role of the review is, so when the Minister winds up the debate, I hope that he will be able to give us a little more reassurance.
It was said in the other place that governance would form part of that mid-term review, so what kind of change to governance, if any, is it likely to make? To what extent might there be some change in the air? If the Government do not like how the arrangements that they set out in the charter are proceeding, will we see a wholesale change at mid-term to the governance of the BBC? What steps will the Government take to ensure that any such changes are as fully scrutinised as the arrangements for the new charter have been? There is not necessarily a parliamentary aspect of the mid-term review or health check.
We had an exchange about governance earlier. I welcome the fact there is to be a competition for the new chair of the BBC Board. I was critical that the chair of the BBC Trust had simply been appointed to what is a rather different role without any competition at all and at the behest, it seems, of the previous Prime Minister—though not, I suspect, at the behest of the former Secretary of State. I emphasise that I am not and was not commenting on the ability or otherwise of Rona Fairhead to do the job, but simply on the principle of the matter. In any event, she has decided not to put herself forward, so the BBC will have a new chair. Opposition Members are mindful of what the outgoing Commissioner for Public Appointments, Sir David Normington, said about the Government’s increasing propensity to appoint Tory supporters to important public roles, so we will be watching this particularly sensitive appointment with extremely close interest.
I welcome the fact that the Government have abandoned the previous Secretary of State’s attempt to enable the Government to appoint a majority of the unitary board, which I do not believe was a sensible proposal. The retreat that the Government have agreed to, following discussions with the BBC, is a good one, because they could have led themselves into criticisms that they would rather not have. I think that the development is entirely positive.
I want to say a little about the thorny topic of distinctiveness. What on earth does “distinctiveness” now mean in the context of the charter? We know what the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) thought it meant. Indeed, today he reiterated in part his view of what it means—we got the distinct impression that anything popular, commercial or with good ratings would not be distinctive enough. He thought that the BBC should be prevented from engaging in any kind of competition with its commercial rivals in this respect, but what does that mean in the context of the new charter?
I think that the definition in the White Paper is fiendish, because “substantially different” can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. We are assured by Ministers that it will not be applied to individual programming. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I never heard him say that he meant it to apply to individual programming, except in some lurid newspaper stories that seemed to be coming from his Department at the time. The Government have simply left it to Ofcom, which is not used to doing this kind of thing, to work this all out later. In my view, there is still a significant prospect of this being used mendaciously, either by politicians—perish the thought—or by the BBC’s commercial rivals, who might simply want to stop the BBC competing with them by making complaints about distinctiveness.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the meaning of “distinctiveness”, but does she not agree that there is also an important point about the BBC, with the vast amount of money it acquires from the licence fee payer, having an unfair advantage over other commercial operators? There has to be a way of ensuring that that advantage is not abused to prevent commercial operators competing for good programmes.
Maria Eagle
The BBC ought to be held to account for how it spends its money, whether or not it meets its objectives and its requirements under the charter. I think that that is absolutely fair. We should not get into arguments about whether particular programmes are sufficiently distinctive or different. The definition is a lawyer’s dream, and there are concerns about what it will end up meaning in practice.
We have heard tell of the £60 million contestable pot of licence fee payers’ money. The survival of that pot is a retrograde step, no matter what use it is to be put to. I note that there is supposed to be some kind of pilot and that commissioning children’s programmes is to be involved in whatever is done with the money from the underspend. The fact is that the Government are establishing the principle that licence fee payers’ money should be handed over to the BBC’s commercial rivals to make programmes. That is different from the BBC itself deciding that it might want to commission programming from independent producers, which it of course does a lot of as part of the way it does its business. The problem is that if the contestable pot simply takes money away from the BBC and gives it to its rivals to make their own programmes without any of the guarantees that the BBC would have for maintaining ethos and quality, it is no more than a raid on the BBC’s resources. That could be the thin end of what might end up being a very large wedge.
We saw newspaper reports before the White Paper was published about a contestable pot involving a lot more than £60 million. Although the pot is currently small and has been identified as a way of using underspends, the possibility that it will expand over time and that a principle will be established that licence fee payers’ money is not to be used by the BBC to fulfil its mission could be significant. I therefore would like some assurances from the Government that the contestable pot will not be vastly expanded during the period of this charter review. I do not think that it should be proceeded with at all.
I want to say a little about salary transparency. We have heard the argument that publishing the salaries of the so-called talent in the BBC is an issue of transparency. I understand that argument, but I want to put an alternative viewpoint. Far from being about transparency, this is actually a tabloid editor’s dream and a destructive bit of punishment for anybody who wants to work for the BBC rather than a commercial broadcaster. Why is it right to invade the privacy of those who work for the BBC but not those who work for any of its commercial rivals? The Minister in the other place said that this requirement—
Maria Eagle
No—[Laughter.] I was halfway through a sentence. I might give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished it.
The Minister in the other place said that this requirement would not be extended to BBC Studios. BBC Studios will still be using public money—licence fee payers’ money—when it is commissioned to make programmes. Why is it right for parts of the BBC that are in the public bit of the BBC to have to meet this requirement when talent in other places commissioned by the BBC, using licence fee payers’ money, does not? Is this really about transparency, or is it about giving a stick to tabloid editors to have a go at the BBC?
Karen Bradley
The point about BBC Studios is that it is a commercial operation that will compete with other commercial operations. When the BBC commissions an independent company to produce content for it, the people employed by the independent company are not paid directly from the licence fee, so their salary is not declared under these arrangements. We want the same arrangements for Studios as for independent companies to enable competition. However, clearly, we also need to know how much of the licence fee is paid to those independent companies that then go on to make programmes such as “Top Gear” that we enjoy on the BBC.
Maria Eagle
This could lead to unintended consequences. When I was a trade unionist, the idea of comparability and of trying to get a pay rise because somebody else was doing a similar job was grist to the mill. If the proposal simply leads to costs for the BBC’s front-of-camera talent increasing, that might be an unintended consequence. I do not think this has been thought through.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady must recognise that there is a big distinction between people who are paid from the public purse and people who operate commercially in the private sector. The salaries of all of us in the House are publicly known, and it is entirely legitimate for the public to see where some of their money is going as far as salaries are concerned.
Maria Eagle
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if the ultimate bill is being paid by licence fee payers, why are they not entitled to transparency in respect of salaries just because an independent producer is involved? That is not consistent, and the proposal could have unintended consequences. This seems to be a populist measure, and it does not necessarily do the BBC any favours when it is trying to make sure it gets the talent that is available. It also gives commercial rivals a lot of inside information—published information —to allow them to see what it would take to poach talent. I do not see how that helps the BBC to fulfil its mission. I do not see the point of pursuing this vindictive little measure but, none the less, the Government have said they will implement it, so we will see how it goes.
It is good that we have got to a better place with the charter review than we might have done. From an early stage of the process, the Government seemed to be contemplating shrinking and diminishing the BBC. They denied that, but it was there in the background, and I think that if they could have got away with it, they would have done. However, a huge up-swell of support from our constituents and in both Houses of Parliament has stopped them. There are still pitfalls and problems that might end up being much bigger issues than they now appear to be, however, so we will keep an eye on how things go, especially leading up to the so-called mid-term review or health check. We will be watching to make sure that the Government do not go back to their original aims in the charter review of trying to do down the BBC. On behalf of our constituents who love and value the BBC as a great UK institution, we all hope that this charter does what the Secretary of State now says she wishes it to do, and we will make sure that it does.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to this debate, although it is not her first as Secretary of State. I thank her for her consideration of the Select Committee’s report and the recommendations during the finalisation of the charter process. I also thank her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), for the consideration that he gave to the Committee and its work in preparing the royal charter while he was Secretary of State. I welcome the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to his place. I know from our time together on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the previous Parliament that he will bring all of his great passion and energy to his new role. I look forward to seeing and hearing his contributions in these debates over the coming months and years.
The speech by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) reminded me of the programme, “Civilisation”. In 1969, the great art historian Kenneth Clark produced an epic series of 13 50-minute-long episodes—a gargantuan undertaking—all about the nature of civilisation. He started off that great series by asking the rhetorical question, “What is civilisation?”, to which he replied, “I don’t know, but I think I recognise it when I see it.” The same formula could be applied to the idea of distinctiveness at the BBC. It is incredibly difficult to define, but somehow we recognise it when we see it. We want a BBC that, in celebrating its great ingenuity and creativity, takes risks that no other broadcaster would take. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich East agrees that putting Ed Balls in sparkly clothing and making him dance at peak time on a Saturday is something that no other broadcaster in the world would do. The BBC does it well and makes a success of it, and we celebrate its uniqueness.
It is right that along with assessing the BBC’s value for money, the decisions of its executives and how much money they earn, we also continue to apply the threshold of asking, “Is the BBC being true to its creative values? Is it continuing to be distinctive enough and to deliver across the great breadth of its programming, because of the unique way in which it is funded, something that no other broadcaster could do?” The BBC is one of our great national institutions. It is loved by everyone in this country, but that is because it has adapted and changed with the times. It has applied its creativity and ingenuity to the great breakthroughs in broadcasting, be it television, the internet, or the great breadth of digital services that it offers now. It has moved with the times and stayed close and true to its values.
The process of royal charter renewal every decade or so, the next one being in 11 years’ time, is about looking at not just what is best about the BBC that we should conserve and preserve for the future, but how we want it to adapt and change in the future. At the heart of the process has been a desire for much greater transparency in the way that the BBC operates. That is why I was pleased that the Select Committee consistently recommended that the National Audit Office should become the BBC’s principal auditor so that it had a chance to go in there and apply its forensic skills to see the ways in which the BBC is using its resources. That is the right approach to take.
The creation of the new unitary board recognises something that most people had already concluded for themselves—that the BBC Trust was not fit for purpose and not fulfilling its role correctly, and that we could do better. In particular, the dismissal of George Entwistle—which is, in effect, what happened—showed us that in a moment of crisis the chairman of the trust becomes, in effect, the chairman of the BBC, and steps in and intervenes in the way that the chairman of a board would do. That demonstrates that the BBC Trust was too conflicted to be an external regulator of the BBC as well as its principal champion and the representative of the licence fee payer’s interests.
The creation of the new unitary board is the right way forward. It also answers a question that has been asked consistently at Select Committee sittings over the past year, namely: who does the director-general report to? It was not particularly clear who he reported to, but now it is clear that he has independence of operation and his executive team to support him while he remains editor-in-chief, but that, post-transmission, he is answerable to a unitary board of the BBC. That is a much clearer management structure and it is welcome.
The other main proposal worth examining—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood has mentioned this—is that relating to BBC Studios. The BBC clearly wants, and has got behind, that big initiative. I agree with the director-general’s analysis that making the studios more competitive and open will help make the BBC more creative and enable it to attract and hang on to some of the best creative talents who work not just on screen, but on taking ideas through to production and transmission. If the BBC recognises something that almost all other players in the TV market recognise, it is that the future of television for broadcasters lies not just in the growth of audiences and the transmission of content, but in owning and creating programmes and formats that can be exported around the world. The future of BBC revenues and its future creative success will very much be tied to the success of the BBC Studios proposals.
Alongside the BBC having that freedom to compete, independent production companies will also have more freedom to compete to produce programmes at the BBC. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, was probably pivotal in pushing that forward; it certainly chimes with the things that he has said about the BBC in the past. The quotas for the BBC to commission out to independents remain, but much more of its commissioning work will now be liberalised, including that for repeat series. The BBC was not prepared to concede on that before, but it complements what it wants out of the studios proposals. I think that we may look back, not just during the review period, but during the next charter renewal, and say that the creative freedom and openness resulting from the studios proposal was one of the most significant reforms of the charter renewal process.
I want to pick up on one or two other points that have been made, particularly on the recommendations of the most recent Select Committee report. We support the decision to run a proper process for the appointment of the chairman of the new BBC unitary board. As other Members have said, it is a different and unique position, and there should have been a proper process to determine the best person. The Committee did not feel that Rona Fairhead should be excluded from that process. She has chosen to exclude herself, but nevertheless there should have been a proper process. The first chairman of the unitary board will hold a pivotal position and play a central role in appointing some of the independent directors, and it is vital that we have total confidence in the way in which they are appointed.
I also concur with the views of other Members—although there may be a difference of opinion on this—on the question of BBC salaries. The BBC had already conceded that executives who are paid more than the Prime Minister should declare their pay. It had also already accepted the principle of very highly paid on-screen performers and talent having their incomes declared, but it set the benchmark at the level of the director-general. Licence fee payers do not understand why on-screen talent is seen as being so different from off-screen talent, with one having to declare their salary and the other not. That layer of transparency was absolutely the right thing to do, and I am pleased to see it in the final draft of the charter.
Andrew Bridgen
On the need for transparency in appointments, what is my hon. Friend’s view of the appointment of James Purnell as head of radio? That has happened at a time when the BBC is bringing in diversity quotas across all its employment, and yet Mr Purnell got that job with no competition whatsoever. Anyone would think that the job had been made for him.
Damian Collins
It is a new post and it was literally made for him. It was not advertised widely for other people to apply for it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said in his speech—I said this in an intervention as well—that, regardless of people’s views of the capabilities of James Purnell, or concerns that people may have about his past political involvement, the key thing is the process that was run to appoint one of the most senior directors at the BBC. Why was there no competition within—or, indeed, outside—the BBC involving people who may have had the requisite skills to apply for the job? If we are going to be critical of the way in which Rona Fairhead was appointed as interim chair of the BBC—as I have said, that should have been a clear and transparent process—that should also apply to other senior executives, including those on the BBC board. That certainly applies in the case of James Purnell; I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen).
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the transparency applied to those on top salaries should also be applied to those who are on contracts that enable them to avoid tax either by paying only corporation tax on money that is paid directly to them, or by participating in tax avoidance schemes, which the BBC now uses for hundreds of its well-paid employees?
Damian Collins
I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. People must certainly pay the taxes that are due on the income that they receive, wherever it comes from. That applies to BBC executives as much as to anyone else. I note what the Secretary of State said in her intervention a few moments ago, and I believe that this is something that we must keep under close review. If BBC Talent is trying to use a loophole by channelling more of its income through independent production companies to avoid having to declare it—our concern, through the work of the National Audit Office, is that there has been an acceleration in that process and that people are trying to get around the rule in the new charter that those who earn more than £150,000 should declare what they earn—we should look again at the matter in the mid-point review.
I want to touch on the comments about the Scottish Six made by my friend on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson). As I was the acting Chair of the Committee and a member of the Committee when we discussed the matter, I was able to give my view on the significance of the Scottish Six. We felt—I certainly felt this, and I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees—that we were calling for the BBC in Scotland to be given editorial independence over the six o’clock news, so that it could reflect the fact that devolution made certain news items less relevant to the Scottish audience than to the rest of the UK audience. We envisaged that the BBC in Scotland would have the editorial independence to make those decisions and the freedom to change the running order of the programme if it chose to do so. The Scottish Six would still be a national news programme, but it would be broadcast from Scotland, it would be produced and edited in Scotland and it would have a Scottish perspective on the national news. We considered the fact that the BBC was comfortable to make that decision with radio, so why should it not consider doing so for television?
That is, of course, an editorial decision for the BBC to make, but one of the things that the Committee hoped to do with this recommendation in the report was to give the BBC a shove and say, “You have been looking at this for quite a long time, you have tried various different formats and you have tried to make a decision. Here is our view, but it remains something for you to do.” I agree with the comments made a few weeks ago by the Secretary of State. I think I am right in interpreting her as saying that, as others have discussed, the Government should not dictate to the BBC what it should do about this; it is a decision for the BBC to make.
Finally, I want to touch on the BBC iPlayer, which has been mentioned. It is important that we remove the loophole whereby people can get out of paying the licence fee by watching programmes—both catch-up and live—on the BBC iPlayer. This also takes us into important new territory that the BBC should explore. By far the most practical way to police such an arrangement would be to give each licence fee payer a PIN that they could put into a portable device to access the iPlayer, to prove that they had paid the licence fee. That is common in other digital services that people use all the time, and it would be the simplest and most logical way to proceed. It would certainly be a lot easier than having digital enforcement cameras—a modern-day version of the TV detector van—going around, trying to work out whether people were viewing the BBC online.
One of the reactions of people in the BBC to such a suggestion is that they do not like the idea of licence fee payers becoming subscribers, or of the BBC becoming a subscription service. I do not think that that would be the case at all. That suggestion is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that new technology allows people to access BBC services in a different way. Those services are still free to access and use for people who pay the licence fee. We would simply be using new technology to make them more readily available.
I believe that a sensible step forward would be to have complementary subscription services that gave people deeper access to the back catalogue and enabled them to stream other programmes that might not be available for broadcast. That would allow the BBC to grow its revenues from its back catalogue and to be innovative in its programme making. It would in no way represent a shift away from the licence fee-funded BBC; it would simply be a recognition of the fact that new technology, platforms and tools will allow the BBC to innovate in ways that simply were not possible in the past. Over this charter renewal process, I would like to see the BBC taking further steps in that direction.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The renewal of the BBC charter is taking place at a seminal moment for the BBC and for the broadcasting industry in general. The dominant position of our public service broadcasters is being challenged by Netflix, Amazon Prime, and cable and satellite TV stations more broadly. As I said in the debate on diversity in the BBC, it is worrying that there has been a trend among ethnic minorities in this country and certainly among first-generation immigrants to return to broadcasters in their original languages and to turn away from the BBC.
Clearly, the BBC is in a unique position both as a national broadcaster and as one of our most cherished institutions, right at the heart of our social fabric and our shared national conversation. At a time in our country when, very sadly, there has been a rise in hate crime and there is a deep concern on both sides of the House and across all political parties about a divided Britain, it is very important that the BBC understands its responsibility—this cuts to the heart of its distinctiveness—to be at the centre of such a shared conversation and of the manner in which we can see reflections of ourselves. Even though I am very clearly on one side of the Brexit debate, I must say that I absolutely want to see reflections in the BBC of people in this country with an older age profile, those from working-class backgrounds or those who live in our seaside towns, as much as I want to see reflections of so many of my constituents, who speak over 200 languages.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that the BBC did a very good job during the referendum campaign in holding a fair balance of both sides of the argument? Irrespective of the fact that he is on one side and I am on the other, does he share my slight concern that the BBC has not held that balance quite so well since the referendum came and went?
Mr Lammy
I will not be tempted into talking about the BBC’s coverage during that debate, but given the salaries paid to senior executives and talent, and much has been said about that today, the BBC’s real understanding of the true fabric of this country beyond west and north London, where so many of the executives seem to live—I say this as a representative of a north London constituency—and the way in which it portrays things that are often quite difficult and reaches into places that are quite at odds with each other are genuinely important. The BBC does that not just in its news coverage, but in the sorts of documentaries and dramas it commissions and in the sorts of faces that become those that so many British people from different backgrounds allow into their front rooms during the day.
We debated diversity in the BBC for the first time on the Floor of the House back in April, and I welcome the new public purpose in the draft royal charter, published last month, which unambiguously commits the BBC to
“reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions”.
I am quite sure that, right across the House, we are celebrating that move. May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) on his work on diversity during his time as the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy? I really enjoyed being a Culture Minister in a previous Government, and it was my belief that there would never be a Minister as good as me, but it turns out that there was.
The draft BBC framework agreement states that the
“BBC must make arrangements for promoting…equality of opportunity”,
irrespective of gender, disability, race or sexual orientation. Crucially, the draft agreement also sets out that the BBC must publish an annual report on the effectiveness of its policies for promoting equality of opportunity. This is a really important point. In the 16 years since the BBC published its first diversity strategy, it has not published any evaluation of the effectiveness of its efforts. If we are to see real progress, we must first know what works and what does not work. Members who spoke in the debate in April will be well aware that since 1999 we have had 30 BBC initiatives and strategies aimed at improving the representation of black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, but between 2011 and 2015 the proportion of the BBC’s workforce that was from a black, Asian or ethnic minority background has increased by only 0.9 % to 13.1%, and only 7.1 % of the BBC’s senior leadership in TV are black, Asian or minority ethnic.
It worries me that the BBC is one of the organisations in which we routinely hear language such as, “This person or that person is going to be the next director-general,” “This person or that person will one day be head of drama,” or “This person or that person is at Sky or Channel 4 and we expect them to come across in a few years’ time.” Given the profile of those people, I am likely to bump into them if I happen to go down Muswell Hill Broadway on Saturday afternoon. That is not good enough. We should not have that expectation. We should reach far beyond that. It is just a bit too cosy and we do not want that kind of cosy friends relationship—despite the nice things I said about James Purnell, who is a friend of mine—in at our national broadcaster.
John Nicolson
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the problems in encouraging more people to enter the BBC is that often work experience positions are advertised with no pay, or not advertised at all? People have to be fairly well off to go to work at the BBC for a couple of months without earning a penny piece.
Mr Lammy
It is clearly not possible for a young person, or even a slightly older person, who is not situated in London or does not have parents who can put them up and see them through, to take up those opportunities. It will exclude swathes of people, and the standard has to be higher.
In the previous debate, there was much reflection on other broadcasters, and some people asked me, “Why are you picking on the BBC?” Let me be clear: I will always consider myself a tremendous friend of the BBC. In my own television viewing and radio listening habits, I constantly switch on the BBC and I am really pleased with so much of its output. But because it is the national broadcaster, it has a higher standard. I pay tribute to my good friend Baroness King, who is leaving the UK to go to the United States but who has done a great job as head of diversity at Channel 4. She has led the way, and Channel 4 is being bold on targets, taking a 360° approach and setting clear guidelines for its independent producers. It is leading the debate consistently, bringing people such as Idris Elba into this place to lead the public conversation. My challenge to the BBC is to say, “We expect you to occupy the same territory and to go further.” It should not be about this House leading the BBC in that direction: the BBC should, to some extent, lead us in the future. We expect a higher standard, and the public purpose should ensure that reflecting and representing the diversity of the UK is embedded into the BBC.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In any large organisation, including this place, people are always being identified by their peers, with people saying, “That fellow or that lady is going to go to the top.” It seems a bit rich to say that the BBC should not do that when all organisations have that sort of culture. I do not think it means to have it.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is of course right, but more often than not, when we rely on those statements and they come to pass, we miss out on seeing and looking at people who do not fit the mould, most often—I say this with great respect—of the white, upper-middle-class men who have occupied that role in the past. It might have been said about the leadership of the hon. Gentleman’s party in the mid-1970s that “So-and-so is going to take that role,” and Margaret Thatcher did not fit the bill. Of course we get people occasionally breaking through, but I am saying that, really, our national broadcaster has to do a lot more. When we look at the top leadership team over consecutive years and decades, progress in this regard really has been quite slow.
The crucial point is that we need to see progress in terms of the BBC’s latest diversity strategy, which was announced in April and runs to 2020. Off-screen employment is just as important as on-screen employment, as the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) suggested in her excellent contribution, so a pledge to have a workforce at least as diverse as any other industry is welcome. The make-up of senior management and leadership positions is arguably more important than who is being hired as apprentices or runners, so targets of 50% women, 15% ethnic minorities, 8% people with a disability and 15% LGBT individuals in leadership roles is an ambitious goal, but it represents a huge step forward.
It is important that diversity requirements are embedded into contracts with suppliers and independent production companies commissioned to produce content. Yesterday, the BBC unveiled new commissioning guidelines that make it compulsory for independent production companies to “consider” diversity and state that there will be “a conversation” about diversity plans ahead of all commissioning decisions. One has to ask, what does that actually mean in practice? The new guidelines use the word “consider” 12 times, but do not set out any specific minimum requirements except to have a diversity and inclusion policy in place. In fact, the guidelines only use the word “must” once: people “must” tell the BBC if they cannot work with these guidelines.
The BBC has committed to opening up its budgets to independent production companies by removing all existing in-house guarantees except for news and news-related current affairs. By the end of the current charter period, 100% of drama, comedy, entertainment and factual hours will up for grabs, and in 2019 competition will also be introduced into children’s, sport and non-news current affairs programmes. In this new “era of the indies” this will become increasingly important. If the BBC is serious about reaching the ambitious targets it has set for itself, it needs to be clear about what is expected of independent production companies. I have to say that guidelines requiring only “consideration” or “a conversation” about diversity appears weak.
In contrast, Channel 4’s commissioning diversity guidelines state that at least one of the lead characters must be from an ethnic minority background, or have a disability, or be LGBT, that at least 15% of the production team must be from an ethnic minority or have a disability and that at least one of the senior directors, editors or producers must be from an ethnic minority or have a disability. That is much bolder. I was watching Channel 4’s “National Treasure” last week—a wonderful four-part drama touching on the terrible issue of sexual abuse in our society. Julie Walters was wonderful, as were her grandchildren. It struck me as I watched the programme with my wife, having put our own mixed-race children to bed, that the two lead white characters were well-known actors, but their grandchildren were mixed race. I thought, “Great! They have done it.” They had reflected gently what was needed—this episode was not central to the storyline—and there it was: a reflection of my family and my children that is rarely seen on television. That is how it can be done, which is why I am surprised that considering or thinking about a conversation is all we have had in the BBC context.
There has obviously been a debate raging for some time; it has been led by Sir Lenny Henry, to whom I pay tribute. We have seen a 400% increase in the number of programmes produced in the English regions and outside the M25 since 2003, which must be a good thing. We celebrate that fact that television is being made in parts of our country where it was not previously made. It brings us back to the business of embedding and hard-wiring diversity as a consequence of the decision. We do not want to lose out because of the attempt to make TV in Wales, Scotland and beyond. I recently met the BBC director of content, Charlotte Moore, and I gained a real sense of her commitment to the issue, which was one I really wanted to raise.
Let me raise again a point that others have made about the now very important position of Ofcom for the BBC. Ofcom’s chief executive, Sharon White, recently warned that the BBC is falling short on stories that reflect all the nations of the UK and their communities. Last year, Ofcom’s review of public service broadcasting found that over half of BAME viewers felt that they were under-represented in public service broadcasting. Ofcom is well aware of the issues, and it is now up to the new regulator to hold the BBC to account if it falls short on its promises. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us in his later remarks on how the Government plan to ensure that the provisions of the charter and agreement are acted on. It seems clear to me that the BBC must be required to publish full data on all elements of its diversity and equal opportunities policy and that Ofcom must analyse and evaluate the data to come to a judgment on progress made each year.
Another important point is whether the BBC’s targets, which are, after all, only an aspiration, should be combined with a minimum standard or benchmark. I hope that the Minister will confirm today that the Government will call on Ofcom to set the minimum standards for BBC diversity, in terms of both on-screen portrayal and off-screen employment.
We have made real progress on making this issue central in the charter, and I congratulate the Government on achieving that. Now is an important moment for our country, emphasised greatly by the social division that exists in Britain at this point in our history. We do not want to see ethnic minorities turning to first-language stations abroad. We need that national conversation, which must be complex and rich. Difficult though it sometimes is to achieve, a lot of people are paid quite a lot of money to get this right. Now is a time when we must get it right, so that I am not here in five years’ time having the same debate about ring-fencing, targeting and the BBC taking diversity seriously.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate, and I greatly welcome the publication of the draft charter. It is worth recalling that at various points during the run-up to the charter there was some debate about whether we would have to extend it in order to give us time to cover all the bases, as it were. It is great testament to the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), whom I see in his place on the Back Benches, that since the election in May 2015 to today we have a draft charter before us. It is also great testament to him that, as we can see, he does not have two horns on his head and is not carrying a pitchfork. He is not here to consign the BBC to the depths of hell, nor did he intend to do so when he was Secretary of State.
I have absolutely no time for those who think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon came to office with an agenda to bury the BBC, and that he was somehow seen off by the might of 38 Degrees and the effectiveness of Labour Front Benchers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, my right hon. Friend is a great supporter of the BBC. He merely made the deeply obvious points that we were going through a charter review, and that the whole point of a charter review was to examine what the BBC does and whether it could be helped to do things better.
I used to joke that we could complete the charter review within 24 hours, but it took us slightly longer. However, as Members now know, the review does not shake the BBC to its core foundations, but makes some very welcome and long overdue changes. One of the biggest issues that we had to consider was whether the licence fee was sustainable, which was a perfectly rational issue to consider. I think it became pretty clear that the licence fee, like democracy, was the “least worst” of the options before us. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has given the BBC an opportunity to trial subscription services, and he was right to do so, because—as has already been mentioned—the BBC will face extraordinary competition, not from its terrestrial broadcast rivals but from the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google. It is appropriate that, in a digital age, the BBC should start to consider how best to raise its income, and, indeed, how best to distribute its content.
Not many Members have mentioned radio. We forget too easily, when we talk about the Poldarks or Ed Balls on “Strictly”, that a major part of the BBC’s output is on the radio. BBC local radio is extremely important, particularly to us in the House. All those people who huff and puff and say “I wouldn’t pay my licence fee for this kind of nonsense” are only too happy to wake up to the “Today” programme and go to bed with the Radio 4 midnight news. The BBC does an outstanding job in radio, and it is important for it to continue to do so.
Let me say something about the subject of James Purnell. I do not have a problem with his being an old leftie; what I have a problem with is the fact that he does not seem to believe in digital radio. I am a passionate supporter of digital radio, but James thinks that everything must go on to the internet. My right-wing friends should really want him to be made director-general, because he would probably put the entire BBC online within 24 hours of being appointed. If James is watching the debate—online—I urge him to back digital radio, because I think that it will be the medium through which we listen to radio. It is at a tipping point, and we need the BBC as a very senior partner in it.
Let me also say, as part of the whole conspiracy theory debate, that I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to provide for a mid-term review of the charter. As I have said, given the current rapid technological changes, it will be very useful to see whether a subsequent Government can make changes that will help the BBC.
I want to touch on four key aspects of the whole charter debate. First, there is the issue of Ofcom regulation. That was part of the reason for my quip about how we could complete the charter review in 24 hours. It seemed to me that the biggest fundamental change on which everyone was agreed was the replacement of the BBC Trust by Ofcom regulation, because the trust clearly did not work.
I have particular praise for the Minister for Digital and Culture and, in her absence, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the Prime Minister—because I think they were right to decide, when they came to office, that the chairman of the new BBC Board should be appointed through an open process. If I may echo the words of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), that is not a criticism of Rona Fairhead, but I think it was quite wrong that there was not an open process for the appointment of the chairman of an entirely new body, and I am pleased that there is to be such a process now. It is obvious that the BBC Board is completely independent. It always was independent even under the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon before the change of Government, but it is clearly even more independent now, for the benefit of the conspiracy theorists who think we are trying to take over the BBC.
I urge the Government to be as flexible as possible on the detail of how Ofcom goes about the task of regulating the BBC. I have no doubt at all that the chief executive of Ofcom, Sharon White, will do a superb job. Those of us who strongly believe in press freedom should watch out for a Trojan horse, however: if Ofcom is required to regulate the BBC, we will need to look carefully at how it regulates the BBC’s web content and print-like content. I do not want to see press regulation come in by the backdoor through Ofcom regulating what the BBC does online; I want Ofcom to regulate the BBC’s broadcast content—television and radio.
To my intense pleasure, a great deal of this debate has focused on diversity. I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his very kind words about what I have done and return the favour, as I would to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) if she were in the Chamber, about the work they have done on diversity, along with many others. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon will confirm, not a meeting on the BBC went by without my banging on about diversity, and I am very pleased that it is one of the six purposes and that it is very prominent. I praise all the other campaigners outside on the work they have done, in particular Simon Albury from the Campaign for Broadcasting Equality.
We have made progress. I was talking to the playwright and theatre director Kwame Kwei-Armah when he came over a few weeks ago. A play he has produced, “One Night in Miami”, is now on in London. He said that, coming back after spending five years in Baltimore, he does see a change, but that is anecdotal and we must keep the pressure on to ensure we see greater diversity. We are not talking simply about black and minority ethnic diversity or gender equality; it is also very important to emphasise the greater diversity we need to see in the representation of people with disabilities, who are too often forgotten in this very important debate. We must make real progress on that.
We have reached a tipping-point, and the backlash has begun. We now see extraordinary newspaper headlines suggesting, for example, that the BBC is anti-white because it wants to promote diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even if there was not a moral case for diversity and equality, there should be an economic case for every broadcaster. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham indicated, broadcasters are losing audiences, catastrophically among the younger generation—those aged between 18 and 24, who are moving online. Those audiences will move to where the content appeals most to them. If they do not see people who look like themselves on the screen, or do not hear stories written and produced by people like themselves, they will turn off in their droves and go online to where that content exists. So there is an economic necessity, and we can make progress.
The right hon. Gentleman praised Channel 4. Considering the tone of so many of the debates we have about broadcasting, there is a great irony in the fact that it was actually Sky that was the pioneer. That great man Stuart Murphy—who has since left Sky, not under a cloud, I hasten to add, but because he wanted to write a novel—simply said, “These are the targets; we’re going to meet them,” and just got on with it. I am pleased to see the progress we have made on diversity but, as many Members have emphasised, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
I have given my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon notice that I am going to give the competitive content fund a good kicking. I hope the new Minister will stamp his authority on the process of the charter review by ditching the fund. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon knows, I argued strongly against it behind closed doors and now, liberated on to the Back Benches, I can make my opposition to it public. It seemed to me neither fish nor fowl; it is too small to take on the BBC. It is perfectly valid to argue that having one public service gatekeeper is too few and we need two, but if that is the case we should take £500 million from the BBC—although I do not want to give the Minister any ideas—because £20 million is not enough; it is merely an irritant.
The competitive content fund would also in effect create what the critics of the BBC would see as a new bureaucracy producing content that nobody wanted to see. People have mentioned the importance of having diverse content and children’s content, and I want to see the BBC and all our public service broadcasters making that kind of content. I do not want to listen to a BBC executive in two or three years’ time saying that that is the job of the competitive content fund. I want that content to be on our main screens. We must not allow the fund to let broadcasters off the hook. I am a practical man, however, and if the Minister for Digital and Culture is intent on pursuing the competitive content fund I suggest he give it to the British Film Institute, which at least has experience in awarding public money for making brilliant British films and has a strong commitment to diversity.
I also want to comment on the movement of responsibility for the free licence fee for the over-75s to the BBC. The BBC has been raided on a number of occasions, and the arguments for those raids have varied in their strength. The raid by the last Labour Government to pay for the digital television switchover was potentially justified, because it was argued that the BBC should help to meet the cost of an infrastructure change that would benefit it.
Dr Julian Lewis
One of the more worrying raids, or trades, involving the BBC taking on funding in return for having the licence fee involved the decision that it should no longer receive direct Government funding for that prized open-source intelligence asset, BBC Monitoring at Caversham. May I appeal, through my right hon. Friend, to the Secretary of State in her absence that no decision is taken to implement the current recommendation to close Caversham Park and radically reduce the funding for BBC Monitoring until the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committees have taken the opportunity to visit Caversham Park, which we have been invited to do by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson)? This is a matter of the greatest concern. The reduction in funding was entirely to be anticipated, but it should not have occurred.
Mr Vaizey
I have just been indulgent to my right hon. Friend because quite a few of my constituents work at Caversham and have been in touch with me to express their concerns. I thank him for his very welcome intervention and I echo his call. I hope that the Minister will pass on to his colleagues in the Foreign Office the need to note the sagacious views of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Select Committee on the future of monitoring at Caversham and how it should be funded and analysed.
Returning to the other raids on the BBC, the digital infrastructure raid was perhaps appropriate. We then took the underspend and spent it on broadband. If the Minister is clever enough, as I know he is, not to proceed with the competitive content fund, we could put more of that money into broadband. I know that he has made incredibly rapid progress on the roll-out of broadband since he took up his present ministerial position, and I know that he will want to reach the new target of 100% by the end of next year. I thought I would just throw that in, because everyone said I was so useless at the job—[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] Thank you. This is turning into a pantomime, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr Vaizey
I was about to say that I was going to get things back on track.
The second raid was undertaken by the then new Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), and me when we froze the licence fee in 2010. That moved the cost of the World Service on to the BBC’s books. Again, that was mildly justified in the sense that some operational savings could be made as a result. The Government have now started to fund the World Service separately.
The third raid related to TV licences for the over-75s, which we mitigated by taking some other costs off the BBC. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, the man who was supposedly going to bury the BBC, actually secured from the Government an inflation-linked increase in the licence fee to counter the effect of that change.
The fundamental point is that they were raids. It is ironic that successive Governments, and indeed the BBC, have resisted a statutory basis for the BBC because that would undermine its independence. Without a statutory underpinning, however, how much money Ministers might take out of the licence fee is effectively down to their whim and how far they are prepared to bully the BBC. Over the past decade or so, too many Ministers, myself included, have seen the licence fee as a pot into which they can occasionally dip.
I do not propose a solution here, but as someone now liberated from collective responsibility I simply wanted to raise the matter and urge not necessarily the Government but the House to think hard over the coming years about how we protect the BBC. As so many Members have said in this debate, the BBC is a great treasure. It should be funded to get on with the job independently and should have light-touch regulation in order to adapt to the rapidly changing technologies that now dominate our lives.
The draft BBC charter gets pretty much everything right. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, the former Secretary of State, and apologise for giving one or two of his pet projects a kicking. He did an absolutely superb job overall, particularly given the timetable. I must also praise his officials, mainly because they are glaring at me from the Box, and those who are not here, who also did an outstanding job in securing this draft charter. I commend the Minister for Digital and Culture and the new Secretary of State for the able way in which they have taken the draft charter forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
There is plenty of time for the debate this afternoon, but the House will be aware that a great many people have indicated to the Chair that they would like to take part. If by self-denying ordinance every hon. Member behaves honourably and speaks for approximately 10 minutes, they will all have an equal chance of participating. If that does not work, I will have to impose a time limit.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I begin by saying that I chair the National Union of Journalists’ parliamentary group, the secretariat of which is included in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who was an extremely able and successful Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, holding the post of arts Minister for a record six years. He demonstrated again this afternoon that with wit and charm he is able to defend some really poor policies.
The BBC is a first-class institution, but it is now at risk. As everybody knows, Lord Reith’s vision was to educate, inform and entertain free from political interference and commercial pressure. We now have a much weaker commitment to reflect the UK and its culture and values to the world. A large part of the draft agreement, which I thought was a strange document when I read it, between the Secretary of State and the BBC relates to the limitations that will be placed on the BBC’s independence and how it will fulfil its role in a competitive environment. We seem to be moving rapidly away from Lord Reith’s vision.
An early section of the draft agreement deals with the role of the BBC as a UK public service and the public interest test. The agreement states that the BBC must consider public value relative to
“any adverse impact on fair and effective competition”.
In other words, when the BBC makes changes to its delivery of the public services set out in the document, its first thought is the impact not on listeners, viewers or citizens, but on its competitors. That undermines the distinctive role of the BBC. When the Secretary of State was appointed, I thought that that was really positive and that we would have somebody in this role who had not spent years in the media milieu and would therefore bring a fresh approach. I was therefore extremely disappointed to discover that she had appointed as her special adviser the former chief political correspondent of The Sun. The obsession with the BBC’s impact on other broadcasters seems to suggest that the hand of Murdoch is evident in the document.
Let us look at some of the specifics in the agreement. Paragraph 67 is headed “Defence and Emergency Arrangements”, but it covers far more than just those things. Its provisions set out no limit to the Government’s power of censorship, and it is possible that the Government could interfere with editorial judgments and broadcasting content. Now let us look at the section on competition. Obviously, the BBC, supported by public money in the form of the licence fee, is in a special position and there are risks of it abusing that position. There was a long-standing argument about whether The Listener was competing unfairly with the New Statesman, The Economist and other weekly and monthly magazines, and now the argument is about whether the BBC’s web content is competing unfairly. What is strange about this charter, and this is where it goes wrong, is that there has been a move from the margins—from a small problem that was acknowledged and needed to be dealt with—to place the position of the competitor right at the centre of BBC decision making about what public services it needs to provide. The BBC will have to consider the positive and negative market impact of its activities, and Ofcom must keep that in mind when reviewing new and changed services. There must be concern that commercial broadcasters will be able to launch anti-competitive challenges against the BBC, including to existing programmes and scheduling.
The right hon. Member for Wantage talked about radio, and there is a particular concern about what is proposed for BBC radio. At the moment, the BBC contracts out to the private sector the production of 20% of radio programmes, but it is proposed that by 2022, at least 60% of BBC radio programmes will be contracted out. That is a massive change in how radio programmes are made, and I am concerned about it from two points of view. First, and most importantly, in what sense will we have BBC radio, with its characteristic and distinctive quality, if more than half of it is produced by the private sector? Secondly, there is the question of the practical feasibility of doing this. When more than half the radio programmes are made by external producers, the BBC’s in-house capacity will be limited. Members who are concerned about that matter might like to sign early-day motion 551.
The performance of the last BBC Trust seems to have been absolutely abysmal. I am sorry to say that that was due not to structures, but to the people who were in positions on the trust. It was completely irresponsible of them to take on responsibility for free licences for people over 75. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has insisted on an open appointment for the head of the new structure, but I do not think that the new unitary board, which includes five Government appointees, can truly be said to be independent.
The right hon. Member for Wantage pointed out that there had been a lot of top slicing. Since 2010, if we take account of the freeze on the licence fee and of the constant slicing away of money for different purposes, the BBC has experienced a real-terms cut of 25%, which is extremely significant.
I am pleased that the National Audit Office will be involved in looking at whether the BBC is properly managed, as it seems that its major problems are related to management, not editorial matters. I very much hope that that the growth in contracting out will not simply be a mechanism for people to evade scrutiny regarding high pay.
The Secretary of State began her speech by saying that the BBC is a trusted, valued and much-loved institution not just here in Britain, but across the world. I regret to say that those fine words do not seem to be supported with an approach on the charter that would preserve the BBC free from commercial pressure and political interference.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Many Members have expressed the view that the BBC is indeed one of our most beloved cultural institutions. Each of us will have fond memories of the TV shows that made us laugh and cry, and those that educated and inspired us. To this very day, some of the world’s most famous TV programmes call the BBC their home, or can at least trace their roots back to it. The BBC also has a proud record of supporting and cultivating some of Britain’s most treasured personalities and actors. With the BBC’s global reach, all this goes a significant way towards promoting our place in the world. It is perhaps the largest exporter of our cultural values, and it is viewed by hundreds of millions of people. Some might even say it is our best soft power asset. However, domestic and global habits continue to change, and for the BBC’s importance to be maintained, it needs to change with them.
Our BBC is not perfect, and it has long needed action to address governance issues and changing viewing habits. I was pleased that those issues were highlighted by all parties at the start of the 2015 negotiations. Now is the time to see them addressed and for solutions to be approved. Like many hon. Members, I have received a tremendous number of representations from constituents who are concerned about the BBC’s future. Given that our constituents pay a licence fee, our communities have a rightful stake in this institution. I am pleased that the new royal charter has been taken seriously and dealt with positively by the Government.
Under the draft agreement, I see a BBC that suits the modern broadcasting and digital environment that we know today. Much has been said about the new governance structure for the BBC. Since the publication of the White Paper, real progress has been made on the subject of appointments to the BBC board through discussion and consultation with the BBC. The fact that the BBC will appoint a large majority of its board members for the first time is indeed a positive measure that clearly maintains its independence.
It is right that all the nations that make up the United Kingdom are represented on the BBC board and that these individuals are subject to the public appointments process. It is also right that those appointments should not be subject to undue political influence. However, it is right, too, that the Government retain a role in appointing non-executive directors to the board of a body that spends £3.7 billion of public money each year. We are talking about huge sums that have to be justified. We cannot allow waste or a lack of openness when it is the public who have such a sizeable stake, yet with the expanded role of the National Audit Office and Ofcom as overseers of the BBC’s financial and content scrutiny arrangements, I am certain that we will maintain the credibility expected of our public service broadcaster.
The BBC is a huge part of our past, our present and our future. The new charter and agreement will enable improvements that will ultimately address the important issues of governance and modernisation while ensuring the BBC’s independence and enhancing the distinctiveness of its content. I am therefore pleased to support the motion and agreement, which will guarantee the BBC’s important place in our society for many years to come.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is indeed a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst). I recently bumped into her predecessor at the Welsh Assembly, of which he is a Member. I did not know that he had such strong links to Wales before becoming a Member of that institution, and neither I assume did the hon. Lady.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who was one of the longest serving arts Ministers in this place. I was surprised that with his wealth of experience, he did not open the debate today. But if it does not work out for James Purnell at the BBC, Lord Hall might be on the phone to him very soon.
We heard two great campaign speeches from the hon. Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), both of whom are standing for Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I would not be cruel enough to make the analogy of Trump and Clinton, but I will say that whoever wins that race, the House will be well served.
Chris Evans
Exactly.
Like the NHS, the welfare state and any other well-loved institution, the BBC is sometimes used by left and right as a political football. An observer might get the feeling that some politicians are just waiting for the BBC to slip up so that they can use it as a stick with which to beat it. Like any organisation in the public sector or the private sector, there are bound to be areas where the BBC will get it wrong. However, it is surely wrong in a free society that holds up the concept of freedom of the press that journalists such as Laura Keunssberg, who are simply doing their job of holding our political leaders to account, are booed and jeered at press conferences and subjected to vile abuse on social media. Equally, when some on the right say that the BBC has some sort of lefty bias, I like to remind them of the recent Ofcom report which threw out 71 complaints against the leader of the Labour party.
My message for those who may be new to the political scene, motivated by certain individuals, is that they have to learn the lesson that politics is a rough old trade and journalists who ask tough questions are simply doing their job. Besides, as my wife, Julia, who was once the head of public affairs at the BBC, has told me often enough, she believed that when both sides were screaming “Bias!” at one another, the BBC must surely be doing something right.
When we look around the world and see some of the state media, we should be particularly proud that the BBC is the home of impartiality. To me it is vital that the BBC retains its independence from Government, not purely from the perspective of freedom of the press, but from a cultural perspective. We are fortunate that in this country we do not have Fox News or some of the shock jocks that we find on the other side of the pond. It is important that we do not have a British version of Howard Stern or Sean Hannity, whose vile right-wing views are seen as legitimate political comment. We should take it as a compliment that that purveyor of press freedom, Rupert Murdoch, has called his own Sky News “BBC lite”.
Around the world, the BBC’s impartiality is looked on with envy. The BBC World Service has provided a window on the world for political prisoners such as Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. That is why the BBC should be encouraged and supported. For me, the central plank of any future charter and framework should be the protection of the BBC’s independence and impartiality. Equally, any agreement should ensure that the BBC is fighting fit, and not only for today’s world, but for the challenges of the future, because, as the decade since the last review has shown, emerging technologies and changing viewing habits can significantly alter the way the BBC is used and what services it provides.
We live in a world of rapid technological change. No one knows how we will view our entertainment in the coming years. It is therefore vital that the Government give the BBC the best possible chance to provide exceptional service. One area that has seen rapid technological change is radio. Far from the days of wireless, radio is now delivered on various platforms, from satellite to digital and internet. The market for radio is now beyond the old debate of FM or AM. The BBC is still the No. 1 go-to organisation for radio. Of the 48.7 million people who listen to radio every week, 35 million listen to Radio 1, Radio 2 or Radio 4.
The BBC also has a web of 40 local and eight regional stations, which combined attract 8.3 million listeners. BBC Radio Wales produces 7,000 hours of original output and more than 2,000 hours of news and current affairs programming. At a time when print media are in decline, it is still BBC Radio Wales that the nation tunes into for its news. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) said in an intervention that more of his constituents listen to Radio Stoke than to Radio Wales because the transmitter is closer. When we talk about Wales, we must realise that there is a divide between the north, the south and the west. I would like to see more localisation in Radio Wales’s output.
I share the BBC’s concerns about the proposal that it must have competitive tendering for at least 60% of total relevant broadcasting time for radio by 31 December 2022, according to the framework agreement. In its response to the White Paper, the BBC Trust expressed concern about the significant additional costs of implementing competition. I do not believe that is simply a concern about competition. Lord Hall made it clear in 2014 that the BBC is committed to commissioning the best programmes, regardless of who makes them. The issue here is the rapid way in which that could be imposed under the draft agreement.
According to the National Union of Journalists, there is virtually no market in radio production. Already more than 95% of the total income of broadcast output of all independent radio production companies in the UK comes from the BBC. It is extremely difficult to see how the BBC could increase competitive tendering to 60% by 2022, given the apparent lack of companies to produce the content. Furthermore, the BBC is a world leader in radio production, with a clear focus on providing good public service. A rapid increase in competitive tendering, such as that set out in the draft agreement, could put that in jeopardy. It would be a real loss if the high quality of BBC in-house production was to suffer as a result.
Another dimension to consider is that BBC budgets are constrained. The process and time required to complete commissioning agreements under the draft charter would mean additional costs, meaning less money for content and, above all, talent.
In the light of all those concerns, the question that should be asked is this: why have the Government included that commitment in the draft agreement? Surely it would be in everyone’s interests if competitive tendering took place over a longer period of time, working with the BBC to come up with a timetable solution that works for everyone. There is simply no need for the Government to rush this.
In conclusion, the BBC is the crown jewel of broadcasting. It should be celebrated for its vital role in promoting Britain around the world. Britain’s international reputation for fairness, impartiality and justice is founded on the values that the BBC exports. The BBC has a huge appeal nationally and locally. The very idea of it not thriving is alien to the British people. Yet it should always bring good value for licence fee payers and it should be given a place to compete in a rapidly changing world. It should also be a place where programme makers can thrive. Done right, the draft charter and framework can ensure that the BBC continues to entertain and educate for years to come.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in calling me to speak. I had to step out of the Chamber for a time this afternoon to take part in a debate elsewhere about my constituency. There was no discourtesy meant to the House, so thank you for calling me.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). Like the hon. Gentleman’s wife, I was of the view when I was broadcasting on the BBC that if my manager received equal amounts of complaints about my broadcasting from both sides of politics, that was probably okay, and I was probably being about fair and equal. That was my personal experience.
I worked for the BBC in radio—for which I have the perfect face—for 20 years. For most of that time, I was in local radio, and I will come on to make some remarks specifically about local radio. As some Members have said, it is a vital part of what the BBC does, but we perhaps sometimes swamp it out of these debates.
I seek to be a critical friend of the BBC, if I can put it like that. I am in no doubt whatever that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world, and I believe that having worked for the corporation for many years and being an ardent audience member for all the BBC’s output.
As an opening summary, I would say this: there is far more agreement between the Government and the BBC than some have perhaps sought to imply here. On the issue of the BBC paying for free licences for over-75s, the corporation has said that that is a good deal—it is one that it supports. On appointments to the new unitary board, the Government have listened. There is unanimity now between the Government and the corporation, and significant changes have been made following representations from the BBC. Overall, the BBC characterises the charter renewal and the licence agreement as follows:
“It will deliver the strong and creative BBC the public believes in.”
So there is significant agreement, and for that reason, let alone any others, we must support the motion and the charter renewal process.
My starting point when considering the BBC and the matters before us today has to be funding. I take a very clear line on this, and it is one that I have articulated in various debates. The corporation receives £3.7 billion of public money every year; that is a guaranteed and growing income. It is simply not credible to say that the BBC cannot afford to provide all the services it currently provides and to fund free TV licences for over-75s. Of course it can—especially given the additional £18 billion in income up to 2021 that this licence fee settlement, delivered by this Conservative Government, provides.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when considering the services the BBC can afford to deliver, it should look more often, for example, at some of the large sporting events, to which it often sends hundreds of reporters when a much smaller number would do?
Peter Heaton-Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will come later to some of the ways the BBC should, and indeed should not, be saving money. It is an internal decision-making process for the BBC.
That £3.7 billion is a very large amount, by any measure. It is more than the budget of several Departments. Imagine the outcry if a Department decided it was not going to be open and transparent about the way it spends taxpayers’ money. Quite rightly, that is something up with which we would not put. Yet, still, the BBC seeks to argue that it should not disclose how much public money it pays its top talent. Of course it should. In 2014, 91 BBC directors were paid more than the Prime Minister, and 39 on-air staff were paid more than a quarter of a million pounds a year.
I do not buy the argument that by revealing those individual salaries the BBC would somehow risk losing its stars to the competition. That does not stack up, because in many cases there are no other outlets that would require, want, or have the means to poach those stars. For instance, no other national radio station exists that would consider employing some of the highest-paid talent on Radio 1 or Radio 2. The BBC has to be more open and transparent about how it spends its money, because it is not the BBC’s money—it is the licence fee payer’s money. I therefore support the Government in seeking to build this into the charter.
Radio is the area of the BBC that I know best—specifically, local radio. I worked for the BBC for 20 years, for the majority of that time in local radio. BBC Radio Devon, serving my constituency, is a fine example of BBC local radio at its best. Local radio, in general, is an underfunded service within an underfunded directorate of the BBC—that of regional broadcasting. For about 6% of the licence fee, the English regions directorate produces about 52% of all BBC output. In other words, it is an incredibly efficient service. That includes daily regional TV news in 12 regions, including “Spotlight” in the south-west, weekly current affairs and politics shows in 11 regions, 39 local radio stations and 42 local websites.
By any measure, that amount of output for that relatively small slice of the BBC’s budget must represent value for money. Yet time and again regional services, and local radio in particular, are singled out by BBC managers for cuts. Perhaps we could understand why if we merely looked at figures on a spreadsheet. The BBC is fond of looking at a figure of cost per listener per hour. Seen purely in those terms, it does seem as though local radio is a relatively expensive service for the BBC to provide. There is a reason for that—it comprises 39 different stations, each a stand-alone operation with its own costs, buildings and overheads. It is entirely unfair, however, to look at it like that and think that the solution is therefore to reduce the hours of local broadcasting that a station provides, to combine stations or to replace truly local programmes with regional or even national shows.
A programme that I once presented has fallen victim to that and no longer exists as a stand-alone local breakfast programme. Members can decide for themselves whether that is to do with the fact that I once presented it, but it is not—it is to do with somebody looking at a line on a spreadsheet and saying, “We can save money by cutting this.” The effect is to take away from our constituents what should be a good local service of news, current affairs and journalism. The BBC should not be doing this. The solution is not to combine stations and replace truly local programmes with regional or even national shows; it is to fund local radio fairly in the first place. The BBC has internally the power and the funding necessary to make that decision.
Local radio fits perfectly into the new requirement for distinctiveness built into the charter by the Government. No other organisation is providing local radio services anything like those provided by the BBC. Commercial radio stations provide nothing close to the news, current affairs and local journalism that BBC local radio provides. Before I entered the BBC, I worked for commercial radio—30 years ago, believe it or not. [Interruption.] I know—it is hard to believe, but true. I started very young. In those days, commercial radio had something approaching a proper newsroom in each of its local stations, but not any more. Now commercial radio has perhaps a regional newsroom with a very small number of journalists providing news and current affairs across a very wide area. No other organisation is doing what the BBC is doing in local radio. The director-general has said that he wants the BBC’s feet held firmly to the fire on distinctiveness. The place to start is to look at local radio and to acknowledge the distinctive service of local journalism that it provides.
I have two brief points to make in conclusion; I am aware of your strictures on time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government have got it absolutely right in making Ofcom the BBC’s external regulator. In my view, having worked for the BBC for all those years, it was always complete nonsense that one body—either the governors or, more recently, the trust—was responsible for both the regulation and the governance of the BBC. That was a classic case of being both poacher and gamekeeper —or both dancer and judge, to use the euphemism du jour—at the same time. The new arrangements are fairer and more transparent.
I end as I began by saying that I love the BBC. It is the best broadcasting organisation in the world, second to none. This Conservative Government also love the BBC. All the nonsense that we heard on certain awards nights and in certain letters to certain papers that this Government sought to in some way hang the BBC out to dry was, to be frank, fiction worthy of one of the drama programmes that the BBC is so good at producing. The BBC is an organisation of which we can be proud. The Government fully support it, as do I, both as a former employee and now as an avid listener and viewer. I commend the licence fee settlement and the charter renewal to the House.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) and to put on the record that I have no professional connections whatsoever with the BBC.
The BBC enjoys a position of unique importance in Wales, with Welsh audiences consuming, for want of a better word, a greater proportion of BBC services than those in the other nations and regions of the UK. The “general impression” of the BBC among audiences—that is rather weak terminology, but it is a measure used by the BBC to gauge people’s appreciation of it—is higher in Wales than in any other of the UK’s three nations.
Between 2006 and 2015, BBC Cymru Wales’s spend on English-language TV output was reduced from £24.6 million to £20.8 million—a reduction of about 30% in real terms. In the face of weak media plurality, the BBC has an important role to play in Wales. The situation as it stands is, according to Ofcom,
“in stark contrast to Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
The extreme reduction in funding has led to a situation where many stakeholders in Wales are concerned about the lack of a distinctly Welsh portrayal in BBC programming.
To counter the deficit of distinctly Welsh content, the Welsh Affairs Committee’s inquiry into broadcasting in Wales concluded that the BBC should allocate
“investment from its current Budget for English language programming in Wales closer to the levels seen in 2006/07.”
Green Bay Media’s Dr John Geraint stated that English-language television in Wales has been
“eroded to such an extent that it no longer represents the rounded life of the nation”.
The BBC’s current failures to adequately reflect the political divergence in devolution across the United Kingdom have undoubtedly contributed to widespread misinformation about which Government and which Parliament is responsible for what. It is no wonder that fewer than half the Welsh population are aware that it is the Labour Welsh Government who run the Welsh NHS, not the Tories in Westminster, as revealed by a YouGov poll in 2014.
Welsh public life is, naturally, very different from that of the other UK countries, and as a public service broadcaster, the BBC must recognise, respect and reflect those differences in its output. The UK Government’s new BBC charter provided an opportunity for the broadcaster to modernise and to adapt to adequately address the differences in need across the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that the unitary board will include a permanent member from Wales, although it is somewhat worrying that they will be appointed by the Government, potentially introducing political influence to the BBC’s board. I also welcome the BBC’s greater answerability to the National Assembly for Wales, although Plaid Cymru will, of course, continue to call for the devolution of broadcasting.
It is important that the BBC is adequately held to account over its service to Welsh audiences. The Wales representative on the board should refer to a sub-committee in Wales; alternatively, the role of audience councils should be maintained. It is crucial that the broadcaster’s external regulator, Ofcom, has permanent Welsh representation on its board to carry out this role. We warmly welcome the amendment calling for a distinctly Scottish news programme. The English-language equivalent is needed in Wales to allow devolution to flourish and to allow the public to make informed democratic decisions. News about both Wales and the world at large should be seen through a Welsh lens. As a nation, we deserve and need better than to be a five-minute postscript to the world according to England.
Despite the fact that Wales secured 7.8% of UK BBC network television spend in 2014—greater than its 4.9% share of the population—the Assembly’s Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee inquiry noted that, although an increasing number of network productions are being made in Wales, the big commissioning decisions continue to be made in London. The result is that an implicit London-centric bias prevents BBC executives from commissioning network programmes that deal with and distinctly reflect Welsh issues. The Welsh Affairs Committee recommended that the charter make explicit the BBC’s duty to reflect the whole UK in its services by having a non-news genre commissioning editor based in each UK nation.
Chris Evans
The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech. I want to focus on promoting the Welsh language. Does she agree that we have something to learn from our Scandinavian cousins, who have promoted their own language by selling programmes such as “The Killing” and “Wallander”? Does she think that there should be an emphasis on Welsh programmes being exported to the main channels with subtitles?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we in the Chamber have no idea what he has said, because he is addressing the hon. Lady instead of addressing the Chair. I will give him another go at it.
Chris Evans
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me. Does the hon. Lady agree that we in Wales could learn from our Scandinavian cousins in selling programmes like “Wallander” and “The Killing” to mainstream network channels?
Liz Saville Roberts
I would indeed agree. A Scandinavian-influenced genre noir, “Hinterland”—“Y Gwyll”—has been successfully sold. Another issue that I want to touch on in relation to minority language is the great significance of iPlayer in presenting Welsh-medium and S4C productions to a wider audience. It is essential that minority languages, such as Welsh, have a strong digital presence as we move further into the 21st century.
To return to what I was saying, the Assembly’s Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee felt that the BBC should decentralise its commissioning arrangements, so that more big decisions are made in Wales, and that was reiterated by the Welsh Affairs Committee. Another way to tackle the lack of distinctly Welsh content, as the BBC director-general has proposed, is to create separate service licences for each of the nations. The Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee stated that doing so
“would enable BBC Cymru Wales to better prioritise funding to meet its own priorities and obligations.”
That, too, was supported by the Welsh Affairs Committee, which concluded that a national service licence should be introduced for Wales to allow for greater flexibility and accountability for the BBC in Wales.
I welcome the review that is being undertaken by the UK Government into the governance and funding of S4C. The future of S4C’s funding has been under threat in recent years with the reductions in its funding deemed to be “both severe and disproportionate”. It is regrettable that the review will not be published until next year. I would be extremely interested to hear how the UK Government intend to incorporate the recommendations of the S4C review into the renewed charter.
In the absence of media plurality in Wales, the BBC has a duty to inform our citizens. The final BBC charter must reflect the unique needs of Welsh citizens and respect its renewed promise to
“reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s nations”.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I have very much enjoyed listening to today’s debate. I rise to speak in opposition to amendment (a) and in support of the Government’s position.
We have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House talk about the BBC being the premier broadcaster of the world, and indeed it is. I have experienced that myself, having lived in the United States, when the BBC and its news service were my umbilical cord to the United Kingdom. While I was subjected to the unpleasantness of Fox News and other very subjective news broadcasters, the BBC was the only objective broadcaster giving me the news as it was.
The amendment is false because its words seek to give hon. Members the impression that it is about furthering devolution. It is about nothing of the sort; it is about a party hell-bent on destroying the sovereign United Kingdom, using any tool as its means of doing so. Tonight’s tool is amendment (a), which purports to speak for the people of Scotland, but all the SNP wants it to do is to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) said that Scotland is frustrated. No, SNP Members are frustrated at the position. A YouGov poll earlier this year stated very clearly that 63% of Scots want the BBC’s news output to continue as it is, with a main UK national evening broadcast, followed by a Scottish broadcast such as “Reporting Scotland”.
John Nicolson
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the dangerous separatists on his Benches were all in agreement about the idea of a separate Scottish Six? Were they just bamboozled by my eloquence?
Alberto Costa
The Government Members who support the Scottish Six have never fought the SNP. I will be speaking to those hon. Members to explain very clearly its policy, because SNP Members will do anything to bring about the end of the United Kingdom. That is what the amendment is all about. It is just another example of chip-chipping away at a great British institution.
Hon. Members have said that there is great talent in Scotland, and indeed there is: there is great journalistic talent across the United Kingdom. In the BBC, some Scottish journalists make it on to the UK stage. Some great Scottish journalists are able to promote objective news programmes across our kingdom. Let me say very clearly that the Scots want to know exactly what is going on across the United Kingdom. Given that England is the larger partner in the United Kingdom, simply by sheer numbers, it is imperative that Scots are able to see the good work the Conservative Government are doing in other parts of the United Kingdom.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me compare and contrast that, because SNP Members cannot have it both ways. Since their election last year, they have changed their policy and they now talk about torpedoing policies brought in by the UK Government that affect England only or England and Wales only. May I give an example? The SNP education spokeswomen, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), whom I emailed earlier today, was reported to have said by the Evening Standard just a few days ago:
“If schools across England set pay scales lower than the agreed national scales, that would mean an education budget across the piste would be lower, and there are Barnett consequentials for us.”
They keep talking about poking their noses into England-only matters because of Barnett consequentials, but, on their own logic, it is imperative that the people of Scotland see exactly what is going on in England so that they can hold their SNP representatives to account.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under the apprehension or impression that the Scottish Six will no longer include news from the rest of the UK. I can inform him that that is incorrect. It is a total news programme, so it has local, national and international news within the same programme. His fears can therefore be laid to rest.
Alberto Costa
The arrogance of SNP Members knows no end. They say that there is editorial independence, but now they are telling us exactly what this Scottish Six will contain. It is a farce of tragic proportions. The truth is that the people of England, including my constituents, should know about the SNP’s terrible record. As I said earlier, perhaps we should encourage—not compel—more news to come out of Scotland so that UK citizens, including the constituents of Members on both sides of the House, can hear about the terrible record of the SNP Government. For example, on higher education, fewer disadvantaged students go on to higher education in Scotland than in England. I think my constituents would like to know that.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have free tuition fees in Scotland, so the constituents he is talking about will be lumbered with tens of thousands of pounds of debt, whereas they would not be in Scotland. We are comfortable with that position.
Alberto Costa
The hon. Gentleman may be comfortable, but the higher education institutes of Scotland are not comfortable, and it is imperative that we hear that across the United Kingdom. Why are there fewer disadvantaged students going on to higher education in Scotland than in England? It is because of the SNP’s appalling track record.
Let us take the NHS too—it is important that the BBC broadcasts this in England. The SNP has NHS targets in Scotland that are constantly not met. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire talked about BBC Scotland failing to meet targets: I suggest he look at the SNP Government and their failure to meet targets. That is important news that is worthy of being broadcast across the United Kingdom.
The amendment is yet another attempt by separatist MPs—virtually every separatist Member from Scotland has signed it—to chip away at a great British institution. Some of my hon. Friends may, perhaps unwittingly, have fallen foul of the SNP’s propaganda that pretends that the amendment would somehow further devolution, but it would only bring about the hopes and dreams of the separatist party for an end to the United Kingdom. Given that we have a Conservative and Unionist Government, I would hope that all hon. Members want assiduously to defend and protect the Union. While I fully support the Government and their successful agreement with the BBC, I strongly encourage all hon. Members thoroughly to reject the separatist amendment, which does nothing but attempt to destroy the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), if only for the comedy value.
During the somewhat meandering and enervating discussion that passed for a debate on the future of the BBC over the past few months, I became more and more convinced that very few people actually care about the principles involved, and it has become another venue for an argument rather than a consideration of the future of public service broadcasting. At times, the Government and the loyal Opposition seem more interested in striking positions to reflect what they think people are thinking on the Clapham omnibus or in the Biddulph Conservative club.
A funding deal was done behind closed doors and the Opposition hardly blinked at the time. I suppose they thought that it might be their turn to do the deal one day. I am delighted that they have finally found their voice on this issue.
These things should all be out in public, as maybe then we would not have had the stramash about how huge a BBC salary has to be before the BBC makes it public. Maybe then the BBC and the Government could have had the discussions with Equity about the data protection implications of that decision. It would also have been good to have had a public discussion about whether a public service broadcaster should be privatising, in effect, 60% of its radio output, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
The SNP is in favour of high-quality public broadcasting serving the people, and I had hoped that I would find kindred spirits and attitudes on the Benches here. But the BBC, the Government and the loyal Opposition occupy the same space in the heart of the establishment, and their self-referencing conversations are equally self-reinforcing and therefore damaging to the political discourse that should be informed by the BBC’s work.
There is a fond suspension of disbelief in the UK that allows the public to imagine that the BBC is impartial and in service to all of us. It is a comfortable fiction, but it masks a fatal flaw in the set-up of our state broadcaster. I find the BBC’s attitude overpoweringly London-centric, begging towards coorying into the establishment rather than serving the whole of its audience. It reminds me of a fantastic piece by the novelist James Robertson called, “The News Where You Are”. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire might enjoy it. In 365 words, he scores and underscores the perception many of us have in Scotland of the way the BBC views us: the important news is what we tell you it is from our studios in London, and when the important news is all over you can have the news where you are, which is less important, unless we say it is important, in which case we will report it. Mr Robertson does a fantastic reading on YouTube and I urge everyone to listen to it. I am sure the sentiments have echoes elsewhere. There will be similar feelings in Cornwall, Yorkshire, Cumbria and Wales.
The BBC has to modernise not its broadcasting platforms, not the media it uses and not its founding ideals but the attitude to those it is supposed to serve outwith the M25. A little less of the patronising would be good: stop thinking it knows best and start learning to serve. The parallel complaint can be levelled against BBC Scotland: stop kowtowing to London as if Broadcasting House holds the great sages of the modern era. Get up and make decent programmes, including a properly resourced Scottish Six, and shout out loud if you are being underfunded.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am somewhat troubled by the hon. Lady’s position. On the one hand, she says that the BBC thinks it knows best. On the other hand, she is making the point that Scottish National party Members know best. Surely the BBC is in a better place to decide objectively on where to focus, rather than individual Members in this place who, when it comes down to it, are all very parochial?
Deidre Brock
I suggest that we are all here as critical friends of the BBC and I make those comments in that spirit.
BBC Scotland should shout out loud if it is being underfunded. We know that the entire budget for all of BBC Scotland radio and television is outstripped by the budget for Radio 4 alone. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) mentioned, BBC Scotland gaining control of the money raised in Scotland from the licence fee could see an additional £100 million a year invested in Scotland’s creative sector, supporting 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs and boosting the economy. The more important aspect is that Scottish programming should be Scottish, not only reflecting Scotland but reporting the world through a Scottish vision.
Alberto Costa
In my speech, I mentioned a YouGov poll in which 63% of Scots said they were happy with the news output as is. Why is the hon. Lady not listening to the people of Scotland?
Deidre Brock
I think that that was based on the suggestion of a pilot along the lines of the current “Reporting Scotland” news programme, and audiences have not yet seen the pilots going on at the moment.
Nigel Huddleston
I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady’s argument about the BBC being extraordinarily London-centric. In the midlands, probably one of the worst-served areas, the BBC licence fee spend is £12.40 per head versus £757 in London.
Deidre Brock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I was not aware of that, but the midlands should make its views known to London. I look forward to his contribution later on in the debate. I am sure that that will be mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire mentioned MG Alba. Under the previous Chancellor, MG Alba had its central funding cut. Obviously, saving that £1 million was what was needed to turn the deficit around, rather than the billions spent on Trident. It is time that MG Alba was placed on the same footing and the same funding as S4C. Give the Gaels their Government funding and a fair share of the licence fees, too. In short, it is time to hand over the cash. So raise up your voices, BBC Scotland, and shout out any inequality, injustice or bad deal. The Scottish Six has to be an outstanding success, free of London control and the dead hand of Broadcasting House. The BBC has to do that, and do it well, to start restoring its credibility in Scotland. This will be only the beginning.
It is good to see that there has been some movement towards including the devolved Administrations in decisions about the future of the BBC, but it has to go further, and more of the BBC has to be devolved so that the good programmes that are being made can be built upon. Scottish programming has to reflect Scotland back to itself—not just have programmes made in Scotland that could just as easily be made anywhere else. No more “Waterloo Road” farces! Scottish programme makers have shown themselves time and again capable of making high-quality content. They do not need London rejects to bulk it up.
More than implementing governance changes, BBC Scotland has to clear out the dead wood from its own backyard: away with the tired and safe presenting styles on radio and television; away with the centralised styles of the BBC’s news reporting; and away with those executives who have outlived their imaginative years. BBC Scotland should have editorial and financial independence, and exercise it ruthlessly. No more lift and shift, and no more forelock tugging: shed the self-effacement and timidity, and start to create a broadcasting corporation that does not engage the people just in phone-ins or vox pops, but engages them in interest, intellect and thought. It should raise those ideals as concepts to which people can cleave.
This charter renewal means nothing more than previous renewals, and future renewals will mean nothing more than this one so long as there is little imagination and no new thought in the continuous plod of the BBC. It seems that we have come to this point with no forethought from Government or broadcaster about what it is they actually want the BBC to do. The cut in Foreign Office grant affected the World Service in the early days of the first Cameron Government, cutting into that soft diplomacy mission— the famous nation speaking peace unto nation. As the licence fees costs for people over 75 fall on to the BBC’s shoulders, we will see more pressure to cut, cut and cut again.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the tendency of the Foreign Office to start classifying some of the money it spends on the World Service as “overseas development assistance”, which is diverting the money from what it should be spent on—poverty reduction?
Deidre Brock
I absolutely do, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution about an alarming development.
In the midst of this austerity-inspired orgy of cuts, no one appears to be saying that there is a plan for the BBC that does not involve using it as a political football—and, unfortunately, no one at the BBC is speaking up.
Deidre Brock
Talking of political footballs.
The charter can be renewed as often as is convenient; the management structures of the BBC can be tinkered into powerlessness; the output can be eternally criticised, praised, held up as world-leading, condemned as not fit for purpose, mocked, exalted or switched off. Nothing is beyond the imagination of politicians looking for something to say. Until there is a serious engagement about what the corporation should be doing, however, it will continue to drift on a current whose direction was set nearly a century ago in a broadcasting landscape bearing no resemblance to today’s landscape.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) is a very excitable denizen of the House, and he is a very keen and assiduous parliamentarian, but he does not enrich his case for intervention by repeating it. He should not seek to harangue people. A polite inquiry—with his insistent air, of course—is legitimate.
Deidre Brock
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had just one sentence to complete my speech.
It has been buffeted by winds and blown about a bit over those 100 years, but whose hand is on the tiller, and who guides or seeks to guide the BBC’s long-term direction?
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I am not sure that I can compete with that exciting exchange, but it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).
I start by congratulating the dozens of bodies and institutions, and the 190,000-plus members of the British public, who participated in the consultation that has led to a very successful outcome in the form of the draft charter. The scale of that involvement clearly shows how close the BBC is to the hearts of many people in the United Kingdom. Let me also give credit where it is due—to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), for all the work and effort that he and his team put into drafting the charter; and to the current team for pursuing the process and ensuring that it reached this very successful point.
It is true that the BBC itself supports the vast majority of the charter and is now quibbling over relatively small points, including about the revelation of on-screen talent pay, which I shall come to in a moment. The most important change, in my view, involves governance and independence. The BBC Trust was clearly not fit for purpose, and the new unitary board will be a far more effective oversight body, alongside Ofcom. For the first time in its history, the BBC will itself appoint the majority of members to its board, and the Government will therefore not be able to outvote the BBC. That is a fundamental point.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I have the honour of being a member, will have a role in the appointment of the chair of the unitary board, and there will, of course, be consultation with the Governments of the nations on the other public appointments. There will be a thorough public appointments process; the idea that there will be Government stooges in those roles is completely false and fabricated, and simply does not stack up with the facts.
Ofcom will play a significantly enhanced role. I am a member of the Public Bill Committee that is considering the Digital Economy Bill, and I was pleased when a representative of Ofcom came along last week and reassured us that it had the necessary skills and experience to take on that additional role. Where Ofcom needs to hire, it is currently in the process of hiring, so I am confident that it will be able to fulfil its role with great skill. I also applaud the expanded role of the National Audit Office. Notwithstanding comments to the contrary, the NAO has skills and experience in the handling of commercial elements of contracts, and it is more than capable of auditing the operations of BBC Worldwide.
The issue of talent salaries has received a fair amount of attention, but I do not think that many of my constituents are losing sleep over it. It is proposed that the BBC should reveal talent salaries of more than £150,000 a year, which is roughly what the Prime Minister is paid. That threshold for revealing salaries is standard practice in the rest of the public sector, and, indeed, in the BBC itself. BBC management salaries of more than £150,000 are already revealed, and, of course, management is also talent, although it is not on-air talent. It seems logical to extend the process to on-air talent. The argument that the BBC would be damaged if salaries were revealed does not hold water; if that were the case, it would already be vigorously losing talent on the management side.
As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) has observed on many occasions, this is a rather gossipy industry. Most people in the industry—the agents and so on—already know who is paid what. About the only people who do not know what the “top talent” are paid are those who are doing the paying: us, the licence fee payers. It is about time that we corrected that. If the talent really are worth as much as they are being paid, they should have nothing to hide from or fear.
We need only look at what our top pop stars, film stars and sporting stars are being paid to realise that the British public are quite tolerant of what many would consider to be exorbitant salaries, as long as the people concerned give pleasure to millions and are talented, and are therefore perceived as being worth it. The BBC need not worry about revealing talent salaries if they are seen to be in keeping with market rates. Indeed, Claudia Winkleman has already declared that she considers herself to be working for the public and does not mind that her salary will be revealed. I hope that, when salaries are revealed by the BBC, a gender pay gap is not revealed at the same time. I hope that the very revelation of salaries may deal with existing pay scales that are rather unnecessary and abhorrent.
Let me end by mentioning the Scottish Six—to the upset, I fear, of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). As a member of the Select Committee, and following multiple conversations, I am sympathetic to the arguments in favour of a Scottish Six. If I were watching the news in England and the top three items were a Scottish health story, a Scottish education story and a Scottish legal system story, I might be a bit bored and turn it off. It is not that I am uninterested in such matters; it is just that I would not want them to be the top news items. However, although I do indeed have great sympathy with the arguments for a Scottish Six, I disagree with my friends on the SNP Benches, because they are asking the Government to interfere. This is a dangerous area. There are areas in which the BBC does itself have to make editorial and operational decisions, and this is one of them. It is up to us to make sure that we put pressure on the BBC, make the arguments and monitor its behaviour on this—and, indeed, on other areas of spend, such as the regions and the midlands versus London. I do not, however, believe it is right for Parliament to get into such detail and force these decisions, although I am keen to continue to monitor the situation and argue the case for a Scottish Six along with my friends on the SNP Benches.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a wide range of speeches praising the BBC, and I also come here to add my pennyworth of praise: I think that the BBC is an excellent institution. I have been in the privileged position of presenting a programme on the BBC, and I have rarely met a bunch of more professional, accommodating and friendly people than those who worked on the programme I had the honour of presenting.
I repeat a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the former Secretary of State, made about the future of the BBC and technology. It is obvious to most people in this country that we will live through a vast range of changes. There will be a vast acceleration in the ability of technology to provide programmes and changes to how people access programmes. The only thing I would say about the charter in relation to this is that it covers quite a long period. Other Members have claimed that a health check after five and a half years will be deleterious to the functioning of the BBC—that it is some sort of plot to try to change the nature of the BBC. However, if the charter lasts for 11 years, surely it makes sense to have some form of break clause or health check after five and a half years, because none of us have any idea of where we will be in terms of technology and how we access material on screen in five and a half years’ time.
My right hon. Friend said the licence fee would be looked at. I think the licence fee is little more than a poll tax. It is fairly controversial in this day and age—this is a matter for legitimate debate—to expect David Beckham to pay exactly the same as someone in much more limited circumstances just for the privilege of accessing the BBC. It is interesting that the charter will extend the licence fee, but at the end of this period, it might well be looked at and reformed. In some instances, subscription services clearly represent a more attractive approach.
We recently debated diversity on the Floor of the House and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has spoken eloquently about it. Pious words are very easy and cheap. Progress has been made, but it is difficult to measure it. Other speakers have said they think the BBC’s feet should be held to the fire on diversity. I am not just talking about ethnic or gender diversity, because we must look at regional diversity, as has been mentioned, and the balance in representation on screen between able-bodied and disabled people. There is a long way to go on this, and the BBC itself is perhaps not the best judge of how it is performing. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been about 30 diversity initiatives in the last 17 years, yet nobody says that there has been any inquiry into what has actually been achieved; there is just a general notion that the BBC has improved. I do not dispute the fact that improvements have been made, but there does not seem to be any way of measuring them, so that is something that Ministers, the BBC and others should consider.
I also want to touch briefly on the question of value for money. The BBC has £3.7 billion a year. That is a lot of money—it is a big organisation—and it is perfectly legitimate for Members on both sides of the House to look at its expenditure and rigorously question whether the public are getting value for money. When I hear Scottish National party Members complaining about an “orgy of cuts”, I tend to get slightly irritated. The BBC has not suffered an “orgy of cuts”. In fact, when we look at Government spending over the past six years, I and others see the BBC as something of a pampered child. It has been exempt from some of the difficult choices that we have made.
Alberto Costa
Does my hon. Friend agree that the language being used is just another example of the separatists trying to drive a wedge between the Scots and the English—or, in this case, the London media?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern about separatist language, although I do not really see it in those terms. I have heard this Father Christmas approach to public spending many times. I have always argued against it; it is not a mature approach to the difficult choices that we have to make. Complaining about an “orgy of cuts” is not a helpful or accurate way of talking about the Government’s approach to the BBC. It is perfectly legitimate for Members of Parliament to look rigorously at public expenditure and at an organisation that enjoys lavish expenditure and receives large sums from the taxpayer. It is legitimate for us to examine that expenditure and to expect a degree of savings.
In my six years in the House, I have always argued against a Father Christmas approach that involves constant public spending and protesting about orgies of cuts or austerity, which, in this instance, is not even happening at the BBC. Indeed, given where we were during the previous Parliament, I think the Government have been rather generous in their treatment of the BBC, as well they might be. It is a cherished and well-respected national organisation, and there is nothing in the charter to suggest that the Government’s approach will be any more rigorous or challenging towards the BBC’s expenditure than was the case in the previous Parliament.
The BBC is well protected, and the charter is to be commended for some of the reforms that it introduces, including new roles for the National Audit Office and Ofcom. Those represent improvements in the governance of the BBC. In the round, the charter has most things right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) said. It has the potential to be successful, and I am very happy to lend it and the Government’s approach to the BBC my support.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). He is rarely off the TV, and he is a fine contributor to the BBC. Whenever I turn on the TV, he seems to be there making his contribution. I hope that, notwithstanding some of the criticism, his chair on “Newsnight” will not be replaced by the one that Graham Norton uses when he ejects an unfortunate audience member.
I should like to declare an interest, in that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the BBC. I am very proud to hold that position. I welcome the new BBC charter and the compromises made by the Government and the BBC to ensure its delivery. I particularly welcome the charter’s 11-year duration, which should, provided that fixed Parliaments survive, take the next renewal out of the election cycle. I have long found it unfortunate that the BBC gets accused of bias from all sides during elections or referendums. While pressure coming from both sides must demonstrate that the BBC is balanced, calmer mid-term waters will be a better starting point for the next charter renewal. I find politicians’ accusations of bias tiresome and that is followed in my list of moans by demands that the BBC find its own voice, with the proviso that the lyrics and music are written by interested Members of this House— I ask the SNP to take note.
I am pleased that the licence fee is guaranteed for the next 11 years, rising in line with inflation each year, that the Government have legislated to close the iPlayer loophole and that they will phase out the ring-fencing of £150 million a year for broadband roll-out.
The BBC took a big hit when it was determined that it should be responsible for free TV licences for the over-75s. The BBC is much loved and cherished by the nation, but its reputation is only as good as the output that it can deliver. The licence fee and the BBC’s commercial enterprises provide the BBC with 25% of the UK’s TV revenues, but it accounts for 45% of investment into original British programmes. I hope that the Government’s additional funding commitments will help the BBC to deliver more excellence to its viewers and listeners.
I have three particular issues on which I hope the Government will focus their efforts following publication of the charter. The first relates to listed sporting events. By closing the iPlayer loophole, which previously allowed viewers to watch content without having to buy a TV licence, the Government have demonstrated that existing legislation has to change in order to capture the original intention in a fast-moving digital age. I ask the Government to consider making the same change to preserve the status of listed sporting events.
The BBC currently interprets a listed sporting event as one that is available only to a broadcaster that will air free of charge and that can be delivered via TV to 95% of the population. With more consumers opting to watch programmes on tablets and other devices, soon no terrestrial broadcaster will be able to reach that figure. I believe that the intention is merely that the output should be free and that the nation can access it. As I understand it, the Government have no plans to change the sporting listed status regime, but I have invited the Secretary of State to meet me to discuss how the legislation can be updated to account for the technology of our age. I was incredibly grateful to have shared a few words with the Secretary of State this afternoon and it appears that her view is that the rules do not restrict the BBC in the way that it thinks they do. Equally, the Department’s view is that if it turns out that the drafting does restrict the BBC, it is open to considering a change. I am grateful to the ministerial team for being so open —I am sure the BBC will think the same.
My second point relates to the National Audit Office. Paragraph 55 of the draft agreement provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General can scrutinise the BBC. I welcome that, but there are two minor areas that may need further consideration. The first relates to which aspects of the BBC can be examined by the NAO. Paragraph 55(1) states that the BBC is to be examined. However, paragraph 55(2) specifies that the BBC’s subsidiaries must also engage with the NAO to that end. I assume that means that the NAO will be examining the BBC’s commercial activities. The NAO is supposed to scrutinise whether bodies have used public money efficiently, but the BBC’s commercial subsidiaries do not, and legally cannot under the charter, use licence fee revenue. It therefore seems unusual to extend the NAO’s remit and I would be grateful for an explanation as to why that may be the case.
My second point on the NAO relates to its questioning as to the merits of any editorial or creative judgment. The charter makes it clear that the NAO cannot stray into this area, but it also specifies that it is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to determine whether such activity is within the confines of that which it is not permitted to determine. Although the NAO must “consult” the BBC when making this determination, I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) that there is no dispute mechanism in place should the BBC wish to contest the NAO’s determination. Again, I ask the Government to seek to rectify that should disagreements occur between the two bodies.
The third area on which I hope the Government will focus relates to distinctive output, which is now written into the charter, with the requirement for Ofcom to hold the BBC to account for its delivery on distinctiveness. My concern is that there appears to be the utilisation of quotas from the outset. Lord Grade has said that
“quotas and prescription are the enemies of innovation and distinctiveness. The BBC must be…free to experiment and to take the risks and meet the challenges that free-to-air private sector broadcasters cannot afford to.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2016; Vol. 774, c. 1986.]
May I ask that Ofcom be given the discretion to determine whether quotas are the best way for the BBC to deliver distinctive output? A broadcaster that bravely decides to put ballroom dancing and baking competitions on prime-time TV is doing pretty well in this space already, so I do not believe the Government have or should have concerns as to the distinctiveness of the BBC.
During the debate about this charter renewal, those supporting the BBC wanted to ensure that the licence fee would be preserved and would rise by inflation; that the next licence fee renewal would be taken out of the electoral cycle; and that the Government appointments to the new board would not outweigh the BBC appointments. The Government have listened to these concerns, in addition to many others, and have given the BBC even more independence and support than existed previously. I am grateful to the Government for continuing to support this amazing and unique institution, which is the envy of the world. It is true that if we were inventing the BBC for the first time in 2016, it would not be organised or funded as it now is. At a cost of only 40p per day, thank goodness we have it, and long may it remain.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to close the debate this afternoon. As most hon. Members have acknowledged, the BBC is a great British achievement. It is truly a national treasure: a hugely precious communal possession. We all own the BBC, so it is natural that so many of us have such strong views about changing it. As an organisation with such reach and power, it is entirely right that the BBC’s new royal charter is the cause of intense debate, so I welcome the interesting and important points made here today from all parts of the House.
It has been particularly heartening to see such agreement across the House on the need for the BBC to improve its diversity commitments. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), a former Minister, the SNP Front Benchers, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) all spoke passionately about the need for the BBC to do better. The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made the important point that there is no Ofcom information sheet on diversity and equal opportunities, and that full transparency is necessary to drive diversity. She looks forward, as we do, to tougher action from the new Ofcom chief executive, Sharon White, and a stronger challenge to the BBC, particularly on the publication of data.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)—I would not want to be accused of partiality in the reporting of what was said by the two Members who are in competition to be Chair of the Select Committee—equally championed transparency as being vital to the charter. He rightly praised the BBC for taking risks that no other broadcaster would. However, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who is not yet back in his place, the BBC has never published an evaluation of its diversity policy, despite more than 30 initiatives. He is an assiduous campaigner and he will not let the Front Benchers on either side of the House take their foot off the pedal on diversity progress in the BBC.
Criticism has come from several Members who have substantial experience in this policy area, no one less than the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Wantage. We are sorry that he has been taken off the Front Bench, but pleased that he has been liberated on the Back Benches, and completely support his comments that the contestable fund is too small and risks creating additional bureaucracy. That money should go back to the BBC with a condition that it is spent on specific diverse content, such as children’s broadcasting.
The former shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), gave a passionate defence of the BBC. We are incredibly grateful to her for her tireless work on scrutinising the Government’s reforms to the BBC charter. She sought reassurance from the Government on three key areas: the specific definition of distinctiveness from Ofcom; what additional resource will be provided to Ofcom in its new role; and what changes the mini charter review will be empowered to make.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), another former shadow Minister, raised concerns about the potential for interference in editorial content and decision making and about opening up the BBC to anti-competition challenges. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on those matters.
I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and what amounted to little more than SNP baiting across the Chamber. I would not like to get in between the two—I certainly would not fancy my chances. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) made the important but quite fundamental point about the BBC being our greatest and proudest export. The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) gave an excellent speech, which was appreciated by Members on both sides of the House. He made the important point that the Select Committee will have a role in overseeing the appointment of the chair of the new board, which is a welcome improvement on the appointment of the chair of the trust, which provoked criticism all round.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) made the case for us to hold the BBC’s feet to the fire on diversity, and not simply rely on a vague impression that we have improved. Last but not least, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) listed sporting events and the 95% threshold. I can assure him that we will consider that matter in the Digital Economy Bill Committee when it reaches scrutiny of part 4 next week. I hope that the Minister has been listening and that he will seek to amend that piece of legislation himself. If he does not, we have an amendment that is ready to go in the line by line scrutiny next week.
I welcome the opportunity to add my own contribution to that of my hon. Friends. The charter renewal process is a chance to strengthen and adapt the BBC’s position as it heads into each new decade, so that it remains a crucial part of our national conversation. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has said, we on these Benches broadly approve of this new version. Of course we have our concerns about the role of the NAO and the distinctiveness requirement and the interpretation of that by Ofcom. On the whole, this charter is a welcome confirmation of the BBC’s scope and the principle of universality. It is a confirmation that the BBC should continue doing what it does so well, which is providing something for everyone from “Gardeners World” to “Doctor Who”, “The One Show” to “The Life Scientific” and “Woman’s Hour” to “Charlie and Lola”. It is a welcome removal of the BBC from the political cycle, which can only help safeguard its independence—the independence that we know that the public value so highly. It is also a welcome redoubling of the BBC’s diversity obligations.
The BBC must go into its second century with a much better representation—on screen and off—of race, sex, age and ability. It is only right that all licence fee payers should see themselves in the programmes for which they are paying, so the BBC’s commitment to diversity must get even broader. It must learn to seek out talent across all the social classes. There is a stereotype of the sort of person who makes the telly: the white posh kid with a good education and the right contacts. The BBC needs to blast that stereotype apart and make it as old-fashioned a concept as continuity announcers wearing dinner jackets. It should be seen as a funny piece of outdated nonsense that has nothing to do with the modern BBC. I look forward to seeing that happen and working constructively with the Government on how we monitor and enforce genuine diversity in all its forms across the BBC.
I also join hon Members in applauding the emphasis placed in the charter on accurately reporting and portraying the lives of all people in all the regions of the UK. Let me make the point again that we all pay for the BBC, so it is only right that the BBC should repay that investment by commissioning and making programmes in and for all the nations of this country.
In truth, there is much to approve of in this new charter. The positives almost make up for the underhand, aggressive, bully-boy way this Government negotiated the last licence-fee settlement. The BBC should not have been given the responsibility for funding a Tory party manifesto pledge and nor should it have been given responsibility for delivering the Government's social policy on free TV licences for the over-75s. It should have felt able to reject even the suggestion that it take on the cost of those free TV licences. That it did not—that it ended up in essence agreeing to become an arm of the Department for Work and Pensions—says a lot about the cavalier, overbearing, menacing way that this Government treated an organisation that they should cherish. It is the equivalent of outsourcing children’s services to Virgin Care and asking Richard Branson to administer child benefit and who should get it. Virgin would not accept such a proposal, seeing it as a threat to its reputation, and the BBC should not have to do so either.
The Labour party will not support Government cowardice in outsourcing welfare policy to an unaccountable organisation. If the Conservatives wanted to cut TV licence fees for over-75s, they should have had the guts to put that in their manifesto and they should have campaigned on it, but they did not. So although we support the charter, we will return to the matter in the Committee stage of the Digital Economy Bill. Despite public outcry, this Government have still not ruled out further such stick-ups. They have refused to establish a transparent process to set the licence fees of the future. Without such a reassurance, we do not consider the matter a done deal.
We shall consider the issue again as the Digital Economy Bill goes through Committee because we on the Labour Benches are committed to the cause of a strong, independent, well funded national broadcaster. It is nothing less than the British public deserve and we shall not let this Government hollow out, purely for petty political gain, an institution that the British people prize so highly.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government to this long and high-quality debate on the BBC’s future. The debate is a fitting conclusion to the process of charter review, during which we have had some hotly contested debates and some discussions that have brought cross-party approval. We have debated some of the crucial issues surrounding what everybody agrees is one of the most loved public institutions in this country. It is good to be able to think about so many of those issues today—almost all the key issues that have been debated over the past year have once again been discussed in this debate. That reflects well on the BBC and the House.
We have reached a positive outcome. That seems to be the overwhelming sentiment in the debates in this House, in the other place and in the three devolved Assemblies, which, over the past few weeks, have all debated the settlement, the charter and the agreement. Crucially, the BBC broadly agrees with the approach that we are taking, and I am hugely heartened because this broad consensus of support for the way in which the BBC will go forward over the next 11 years is an asset to the nation. It shows that we have done the right thing for the BBC, for the UK’s unique creative sector and for the audiences whom we serve all around the United Kingdom.
I pay tribute to those who have done most of the work. I am proud to have played a small part, but the real heavy lifting was done by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who are both in their places, rightly blushing, as they should have done all the way through the debate. It was very entertaining to see their private disagreements being aired in public. The fact that we have such capable, wise and thoughtful former Ministers contributing from the Back Benches is a great asset. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said that everyone loves the BBC, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) will put him right shortly.
I thank all Members who contributed and fed into the charter review and all the 192,000 members of the public and organisations who have been involved. I shall go through as many of the detailed issues as I can. On diversity, we drew on a strong well of cross-party support across the House from all the parties whose Members spoke. It is critical that the BBC should reflect the nation that it serves. It has acknowledged that it needs to do more, but more it must do. I am sure that it will, but we will undoubtedly hold its feet to the fire, and Ofcom will ensure that the commitments in the charter are upheld. Of course, it is for the BBC board, in the first instance, to set, monitor and fulfil its policies, but Ofcom will assess that performance periodically. Sharon White, the chief executive of Ofcom, has already remarked upon the BBC’s diversity record and said that it needs to do better, so clearly progress needs to be made.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) all made powerful speeches on the importance of diversity. In answer to a specific point, an information sheet on diversity policy will be produced pronto. On screen and off screen matter; it matters not only who is reflecting the country on our TV screens, but who is making the decisions and who is working at all levels of the organisation. I think that is true across most organisations. The case was put most strongly when the point was made that this is not only a social but an economic imperative, because we need to draw on all the talents of our nation.
Several Members talked about the importance of radio, including the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones). Support for the BBC delivering diverse radio content is incredibly important, and I am sure that the BBC has heard the message loud and clear.
I want to address the point about distinctiveness. Including distinctiveness in the BBC charter was an important part of the renewal process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon spoke about that eloquently. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Government see distinctiveness in exactly the way he set out. In answer to a question that was asked, the draft agreement makes it clear that BBC services and output need to be taken as a whole when it comes to distinctiveness. Ofcom has the experience and guidance to treat complaints relating to distinctiveness properly and appropriately. It will set broad metrics, but this must not become a tick-box exercise. It needs to take into account all BBC output. Again, those will be high-level requirements. Ofcom can then develop an evidence-based approach to think about the BBC’s distinctiveness.
Let me turn to appointments and governance, which was a point of contention for some Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) spoke powerfully about the need to ensure that we have strong governance to support an excellent BBC. There was strong support for the unitary board and for external regulation by Ofcom. We have been working closely with the BBC to set out the processes by which the new board will be established. Some Members suggested that the processes undermined the BBC’s independence. They could not be more wrong. The new processes for appointment to the BBC board are unprecedented, in terms of the number of appointments that will fall to the BBC itself. Of course, Government appointments, following the proper OCPA—Office of Commissioner for Public Appointments—processes, are often for independent positions. Once appointed, all appointees will be independent board members of the BBC, responsible for the BBC in its entirety. The board, as was clearly pointed out, will not have editorial control; it will be non-executive. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) made the argument very well when he explained this quite passionately and set out Ofcom’s oversight role.
Let me turn to the over-75s deal, which I am told we will return to in the Digital Economy Bill. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and Opposition Front Benchers set out concerns about this. The agreement on the concession for free TV licences is important. The licence fee is classed as a tax, and as such the Government retain ultimate control over it. That is the system we have successfully relied upon for decades. The track record is unbroken by last summer’s deal. Far from using some of the terms that were used in the debate, I will leave the House with this comment by the BBC’s director-general:
“The government’s decision to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”
That is the reality of the settlement that was agreed, and it is why it is reasonable for everybody to support it. The deal was reached in negotiation with the BBC, and there were concessions in return—for instance, closing the iPlayer loophole and making sure that all those who watch BBC content will pay for the BBC in the future. The closure of the iPlayer loophole is one of the important long-term considerations that will support the BBC sustainably into the very distant future.
As part of the deal, we said that we will transfer the policy of the over-75s concessions to the BBC in the Digital Economy Bill, and some people were concerned about that, but the BBC itself requested that change. The BBC has a long history of dealing delicately with matters on the licence fee, which, while it remains the most supported method of funding the BBC, is not universally popular, but I am sure the BBC will be able to handle that appropriately.
We had a series of discussions about the contestable fund. In fact, this was one of the moments of extraordinary distance between my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and for Wantage. There they are sitting next to each other right now, but the gap was apparent in their speeches earlier. The licence fee is a fee paid by the general public to watch or record TV programmes; it is not necessarily just a payment for BBC services. That was true in the last Parliament and the last settlement, when we used some of that money for broadband, which was very exciting. It is reasonable that a small proportion of the licence fee can be made available to organisations other than the BBC to help deliver publicly funded content.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
My right hon. Friend understandably draws attention to the apparently contested views on the contestable fund of my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), but the truth is that those views—like BBC1 and BBC2, or like Radio 6 Music and Radio 1—are in fact complementary. Yes, there is a slight difference between them, but they reinforce the overall thrust and wisdom of the reforms that, together, my right hon. Friends introduced and that, I think, are applauded across the House.
Matt Hancock
I would love to say I agree with my right hon. Friend, but he obviously missed those exchanges, because there really was quite a lot of distance between my two right hon. Friends. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage repudiated the position he had supported when he was bound by collective responsibility. However, the troika of my right hon. Friends will no doubt be able to discuss the issue at length as we debate what the contestable fund should be used on. Given that this is a pilot, we are going to look at, and work on, how the contestable fund should operate. At the end of the pilot, we will then assess the impact of the scheme. Questions were raised over the permanence of the funding. There is £60 million of funding over two to three years. Then we can assess the effectiveness of having a contestable fund.
Many right hon. and hon. Members discussed the mid-term review. Most were supportive, and it is entirely reasonable that we look at how Ofcom discharges its duties, for instance. It will not look at the mission of the BBC, the public purposes of the BBC or the licence fee funding model over the period of the charter. However, there were a couple of dissident voices. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) was grateful that the process was taken out of the political cycle, and she supported separate processes for funding and review in future, but she was concerned about mission creep in the mid-term review. I want to assure her that this is not envisaged as another charter review, but it is right that we can have a look at how things are working halfway through the next 11 years.
Several Members discussed the importance of the National Audit Office. I can confirm that it will assess value for money, and it will cover publicly funded areas and subsidiaries. The same rules that the Comptroller and Auditor General uses for what is in scope will apply for the BBC, and I do not see why that should be any different.
On listed events, I understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). We have looked in detail at this, and we disagree on the matter. We do not think that the BBC’s concerns are valid, but we will of course keep it under review.
There was a big discussion about salary transparency. I strongly believe in transparency of salaries for publicly funded posts. As the Secretary of State set out, BBC studios are commercial—as they must be under the charter—and it is therefore reasonable for them not to be covered, but the BBC itself is public. This is public money, so transparency is reasonable, as in other parts of the public sector.
I turn to the SNP amendment and the devolved legislatures. Broadcasting is a reserved matter, because broadcasting is a national issue, and the BBC is the nation’s broadcaster. Of course, the BBC needs better to reflect the diversity of the whole UK, and we have worked hard to ensure that that is in the charter and the agreement. I remind the House that the new charter includes the implementation of recommendations from the Smith commission, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) outlined so powerfully, did not recommend that broadcasting or the affairs of the BBC be devolved. On the specific issue of the Scottish six o’clock news, which has drawn so much speculation, it is vital that the BBC is editorially independent, so that politicians cannot interfere with editorial matters. A vote for the amendment is a vote for political control of the BBC. The SNP may want political control of the BBC, but we say no. What is more, as the charter says, the BBC, as the nation’s broadcaster,
“should bring people together for shared experiences and help contribute to the social cohesion and wellbeing of the United Kingdom”.
I hope that the House will resist the amendment, support the charter and all the work that has gone into it over the past year, and, with that, wish the BBC a strong, vital and healthy future.
Amendment proposed: (a), at end insert—
“and, recognising the special identities of the nations of the UK, calls upon the Government and the British Broadcasting Corporation to deliver maximum devolution of broadcasting and, specifically for Scotland, the six o’clock news option recommended by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in its Third Report, BBC White Paper and related issues (HC 150), published in August 2016”.—(John Nicolson.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
Petitions
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition, calling for fair transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s who are affected by the changes to the state pension age. Hon. Members will remember that the last time the House debated the Pensions Act 2011, Ministers promised that there would be fair transitional arrangements. These have failed to materialise, harshly affecting women in Edinburgh East and, indeed, in many other areas. I thank all those who have contributed to the petition, and the many others throughout the country who have similarly contributed to petitions lodged by other hon. Members.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Edinburgh East,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001932]
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition, signed by over 500 of the residents of Hove and Portslade, on behalf of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. The women who have signed the petition and those who would be beneficiaries of the petition have discovered the heartbreaking news that their plans, hopes and anticipation for retirement have been shattered. These women have acted with such good grace, dignity and unstoppable determination. They are a credit to our community, and I hope that the Government take heed of this petition.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The petition of residents of Hove.
[P001950]
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Telford, relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts.
My petition is identical to those already presented, so I will not read it out, and in any event I do not have my glasses.
The Petition of residents of Telford.
[P001949]
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I rise to present a petition from 26 residents of the Bury North constituency, collected by my constituent Mrs Christine Wootton, relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts. This petition is in the same terms as others presented today and on several recent days. It concludes:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The Petition of residents of Bury North.
[P001951]
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts. The petition is identical to the one presented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who has already referred to its content so I will not read out the full text. I wish to pay tribute to Wilma Grey, the Northern Ireland co-ordinator of this petition and the lobby group, who is also from Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It concludes:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The Petition of residents of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
[P001952]
Yemen
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the House for allowing this vitally important debate. I was surprised that a Minister from the Department for International Development and not the Foreign Office is representing the Government, as this debate is primarily on foreign affairs matters. Observers have always feared that the FCO would like to take control of DFID: perhaps tonight we are seeing a reverse takeover. The Minister’s knowledge of this area, however, is not in doubt and I am pleased to see him in his place.
This debate occurs at one of the most critical moments in Yemen’s long history. In August, UN-backed peace talks in Kuwait between the Houthi rebels and the Yemeni Government broke down, leading to intense fighting and a restarting of the airstrikes. Thousands have died in the following months. Only last week, 140 people were killed and 500 injured in an airstrike on a funeral in Sana’a. The Saudi Government have now apologised for that incident, blaming the bombing on bad intelligence. What a terrible reason to die.
This morning, a 72-hour ceasefire was announced by UN Special Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. It will begin at midnight tomorrow. All our eyes may be on Syria and Iraq, but tonight we in the British Parliament invite the world to focus on Yemen’s forgotten crisis. Our message to the Government is quite simple: either we stop the fighting permanently or Yemen will bleed to death.
I have been privileged to serve as chair of the all-party group on Yemen since joining Parliament. I am very proud that there are so many Members who are interested in Yemen and so many Members present today. Several Members of this House were born in Yemen, including myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). She is an officer of the all-party group, along with the hon. Members for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Other Members have served the armed forces in Yemen, including the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Those who represent constituencies with large Yemeni communities have worked hard on behalf of their constituents, including my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). This includes the late Harry Harpham, who served as the group’s secretary. I am delighted that his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), is equally dedicated. Tomorrow, the group will meet representatives of all of the major charities to hear from the former Foreign Minister of Yemen, Dr Abu-Baker Al-Kirby.
These parliamentary ties further demonstrate the unique relationship our country has had with Yemen over the past 150 years. When Yemen was last in crisis, during the Arab Spring of 2011, it was the British Government, in particular the current Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who was later the Prime Minister’s envoy to Yemen, who worked with the Yemeni Government. We supported Yemen through that crisis, which, other than Tunisia, was the only peaceful democratic revolution in the middle east. We continue to be one of the largest bilateral aid donors, and the International Development Secretary has just raised our contribution to a total of £100 million. In turn, Yemenis have a great love of Britain. When the Yemeni Foreign Minister Riad Yassin visited Parliament last year, he brought with him a video. It was not a video of the ongoing conflict, which we were aware of, but of our Queen’s last visit to Aden, where the local hospital I was born in was named after her.
This positive history therefore makes the current situation all the more tragic. Through a sluggish, confused and weak approach to the crisis, the international community as a whole should be measured against a scorecard of shame: over 10,000 people have been killed in the past 18 months; at least 1,200 children have been killed, with another 1,700 injured; 3 million people are now suffering from acute malnutrition; 21.2 million people, four-fifths of the entire population, require urgent humanitarian assistance, 9.9 million of whom are children; 3.2 million people are internally displaced; 19.3 million people are in need of health care and protection services; and 14.1 million people, equivalent to the combined populations of London, Birmingham and Glasgow, are at risk of hunger.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The impact on the most vulnerable in society in Yemen is simply immeasurable. It is our job in this House to stand up against what is wrong. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are instead enabling that?
Keith Vaz
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. I commend her party and its Members for the way in which they have raised Yemen on so many occasions. I am grateful, and the House is very grateful, for that. She is right that we need to do much more. Organisations such as Save the Children, UNICEF, Islamic Relief, Médecins sans Frontières and the Red Cross are performing wonders on the ground, but they are struggling to get the funding needed for emergency programmes.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that I recently travelled to the World Bank with RESULTS UK to put forward the argument that the first 1,000 days of a child’s life are vital for their development. This means that even when the conflict ends, the effects will not stop. They will not cease. Millions of children will be left stunted with delayed cognitive development and may still die, despite the conflict ending. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to be doing more to find a peaceful solution?
Keith Vaz
I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree wholeheartedly.
When faced with a crisis of these proportions, one would have expected, as my hon. Friend has said, that the international community, led by the UK, would be urgently bringing the conflict to an end, and putting this at the very top of the agenda at the United Nations. Instead, when faced by this reality, the world has failed Yemen. We failed to stop the escalation of violence in March last year, and we failed to stop the fighting over the last 18 months. We have had two clear opportunities for a sustainable end to the fighting: a brief ceasefire for negotiations in April this year ended in failure; and the UN-sponsored round of talks in Kuwait ended in failure in August. Will the Minister confirm whether or not the UK Government were invited to these negotiations? Were we actually in the room?
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of, and care for, the country of Yemen is well known. Does he agree that what would make the greatest difference to the humanitarian situation in Yemen would be a stable ceasefire followed by a long-term sustainable peace settlement, and that while that settlement must originate from among the Yemeni peoples themselves and not be imposed from outside, the unique historical relationship that the UK has with Yemen, to which the right hon. Gentleman was alluding, makes us well placed to help facilitate the delivery of that settlement, building on the work of the Minister for Europe and the Americas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan)?
Keith Vaz
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is vice-chairman of the all-party group. He is right to highlight, as I have done, the role of the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. There is a vacancy for a special envoy for Yemen, and if I could persuade the Prime Minister to send him there, among all his other duties, the right hon. Gentleman would make a very good contribution.
Amid this lack of diplomatic progress, the intervention by the Saudi-led coalition has become central to the crisis. This coalition intervened at the request of the legitimate Government of Yemen. However, 18 months on, the airstrikes, which are heavily impacting on the civilian population, have become counter-productive—so counter-productive that it has become the eye of a storm of intense criticism, which overshadows every other element of the crisis. These airstrikes, which Save the Children believes to be responsible for 60% of all civilian deaths in the conflict, are breeding hostility inside and outside Yemen.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a strong speech. He will be aware of the reports of the International Development Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on this very matter, but is he aware that yesterday a number of us, along with UK Government Ministers, met the Saudi Foreign Minister? While we had a frank and candid discussion about the terrible attack on the funeral hall, the Saudi Foreign Minister refused to give any clarity about when and to what level investigations would take place into the hundreds of other incidents reported by leading non-governmental organisations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that the Saudis are clear about what has happened in those incidents and allow an independent investigation?
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
We all recognise and welcome moves for a ceasefire. However, two Select Committees have endorsed the view that UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia should cease. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should respect the findings of those Committees and stop arms sales until a proper investigation into the atrocities in Yemen takes place, or indeed a permanent ceasefire is put in place?
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is the issue of the extra petrol that we are pouring on the flames that is key. I have raised on a number of occasions the bombing of Médecins Sans Frontières hospitals, particularly in Sana’a last autumn. We are always told that “Saudi Arabia will investigate”, but that is not good enough. We should not be selling arms in this situation.
Chris White
I know that a couple of questions have been asked by Members who have served on the Committees—
Chris White
I am aware that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is familiar with a report in which the Business, Innovation and Skills and International Development Committees called for an independent United Nations-led investigation and a pause in the sale of arms exports until that had taken place. Does he agree that that could only assist in alleviating the humanitarian crisis?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Congress recently passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which is aimed at the Saudis? Does he think that that is why the Saudis are starting to scale back some of their attacks?
Keith Vaz
My fellow Yemeni—by birth—is right. I think that the pressure in the United States Congress, to which I shall allude later, is making a difference, especially given recent events. I think that it takes more than the United Kingdom to do this and that Congress has a very important role.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way to all of us. He is probably aware of the use of cluster munitions in Yemen and the problems that they have caused for civilians by lying unexploded, thus creating de facto minefields which can kill or maim. Will he join me in calling on the Government to review the support that they are giving to the organisations involved in clearing those munitions?
Keith Vaz
Yes, I will. We do need to support those organisations. I think that I am able to give way so often thanks to the BBC debate running a little short. Whether we like or hate the BBC, we should thank it for allowing us this extra time.
A generation of Yemenis now risk learning how to hate Saudi Arabia and the west. At a recent meeting organised by the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, journalists Nawal al-Maghafi and Peter Oborne, who had recently returned from Yemen, said that the long history of goodwill towards Britain was almost eroded. The strength of that criticism means that when we are critical of Russia’s actions in Syria, it is now pointing at Yemen and claiming moral equivalency. That is not sustainable. Yemen is now the Achilles heel of western diplomacy. Quite simply, it is in everyone’s best interests, including Saudi Arabia’s, for the airstrikes to end permanently.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. Does he agree that if the United Kingdom Government’s review of its arms sales uncovers breaches of international law by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, there should be not only an end to the sales of arms to Saudi Arabia, but a root-and-branch review of our relationship with the kingdom?
Keith Vaz
That is a very important point. The Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that this is one of the issues that the Committees, and other Committees of the House, will have to examine—indeed, they are doing so as we speak.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have succeeded where the right hon. Gentleman could not.
Keith Vaz
I will put that in my diary, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let me return to the serious issue of Yemen. The issues of the investigations of the bombings, which have been mentioned by several Members, and the UK’s sale of arms to Saudi Arabia have been raised here tonight, and also outside Parliament. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as Oxfam, Amnesty International and others, have identified, as have hon. Members this evening, the human rights violations committed by all sides. The latter of those organisations argues that DFID’s good work is being undermined by £3.3 billion of aircraft and bombs sales to Saudi Arabia in the 12 months from March 2015.
The Saudi Arabian Government have investigated incidents, but these investigations have been criticised for not being independent. They must understand that continuing the bombing campaign will lead only to more incidents and criticism, and calls for further investigations.
We are joined by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), and I am grateful to him for reinforcing the Government’s position tonight. Only one of the Ministers present will be able to speak in this debate, but I would like them both to clarify a number of points. What support is the UK providing Saudi Arabia with regards to both preventing and investigating human rights violations, including through providing personnel? What is the UK’s policy on an independent investigation into possible human rights violations by all sides in the conflict? What is the current status of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and will this be subject to review?
Just as it is darkest before the dawn, the international community is finally moving in the right direction. After the Houthis fired on the USS Mason last week, the Americans fired back, into Yemen, for the first time in this conflict. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump talked about Syria at length in their last debate; it is hoped that they will be asked about Yemen tomorrow. Let us not forget that Secretary Clinton was the first Secretary of State in history to visit Yemen.
On Sunday, in London, US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Foreign Secretary met Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir and the UN special envoy to discuss this conflict. At the meeting, they made a very clear call for a ceasefire “within hours”. An hour is clearly a long time in diplomacy, but at last today a 72-hour ceasefire has been announced. This is most welcome, but it is not the end. Seventy-two hours is not enough for the Yemeni people. It is vital that our Government ensure that the ceasefire becomes permanent.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I have been listening with interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. He made reference to the Houthis firing on a US naval ship. Does he agree that one of the things that is so worrying about the conflict is the possibility of threating some of the key shipping routes that pass through Aden, which might destabilise the whole region?
Keith Vaz
That is absolutely right. As I will say towards the end of my speech, that has an effect on the humanitarian aid getting into Yemen.
I spoke last night with the UK’s permanent representative to the United Nations, the excellent Matthew Rycroft, who made it clear that the UK leads on this issue at the Security Council. He also confirmed that the UK had already drafted a Security Council resolution. It will call for an end to hostilities, investigations into human rights violations and a restart of the negotiations. It is in response to this that Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states have put together their own pre-emptive ceasefire. That is clearly welcome, but will the Minister confirm that if the coalition’s ceasefire breaks in 72 hours’ time and violence resumes, the UK will immediately demand that the draft resolution is tabled? Will he also confirm that when Yemen is discussed by the Security Council in New York on 31 October, the United Kingdom will demand a joint statement calling for a permanent diplomatic solution?
Now that the ceasefire is in place, we must take a central role in the peace talks. Will the Minister confirm who will be in the room for these talks? Will the talks include the United Kingdom, the United States, the Saudi Government, the Houthis, former President Saleh and the Yemeni Government? It needs to be made clear at the talks that concluding without an agreement is not an option. As her predecessors have done, will the Prime Minister herself call on both King Salman of Saudi Arabia and President Hadi to press for peace?
Despite the criticism that the United Kingdom has faced in recent months, we can still be the honest broker, and that means putting pressure on all sides, including those who receive British support. Is the United Kingdom prepared to sanction the Yemeni and Saudi Governments by withdrawing support, suspending arms sales or in other ways if they allow the next round of negotiations to fail? We also need to give the UN special envoy all the tools that he needs to do his job. Will the Minister tell the House what support, including staff and finances, we have provided to the special envoy?
Another step that we need to take relates to humanitarian access. This is vital not only to address the humanitarian crisis, but to show that the United Kingdom wishes to act for the Yemeni people. In the scorecard of shame that I mentioned, I have set out the reality in Yemen, which is an extraordinarily dangerous place for aid agencies to work. Some parts of the country, particularly in the north, are practically unreachable. Following the closure of Sana’a airport, the cutting off of major roads and bridges and the withdrawal of safety assurances, UNICEF has informed me that many aid agencies have withdrawn from Saada and Hajjah. The increase in aid is welcome, but what are we doing to ensure that it gets through? We must do more, and this must be included in the UN resolution.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has once again brought this subject to the House for debate. It is important that these issues are raised. He talks about access for aid agencies, which is absolutely crucial. Médecins sans Frontières is finding it very difficult to maintain hospitals in the country and reports that, even where there are hospitals, the situation is so unsafe and people are so frightened to leave their homes that by the time they reach the hospital, they are often seriously ill, with some of them sadly dying. Will he impress on the Government that we need to act in support of those medical facilities as well?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Lady has just done that very eloquently. The worst part of the bombing of the funeral was that there were two bombs. The first killed the people at the funeral and the second was intended to deal with the first attenders. To say that such incidents are the result of bad information is a terrible excuse and that must never happen again.
I would like to end by telling the House that my interest in Yemen is not just political, but deeply personal. Yemen was once known as Arabia Felix, or “happy Arabia”, and that is how I remember the country. The first nine years of my life were among my happiest. Every night when I go home from this place, I think of Aden, and I light frankincense just to remind me of it. Yemen is an easy country to fall in love with. It has incredible beauty, enormous history and wonderful people. Its geography and its architecture are among the most stunning in the world. It is renowned as the home of the legendary Queen of Sheba. It breaks my heart that incredible cultural heritage sites are being reduced to rubble by the fighting and that we will never be able to recreate them. We are part of this conflict; we cannot walk by on the other side. This is a crisis crying out for leadership. Saudi Arabia, the Yemeni Government, the Houthis and the Yemeni people all need a way out of this conflict. We are in a unique position to show them the way, and to take them there.
It has been said to me that we hold all the pens on Yemen. We need to use every ounce of our considerable influence. Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. To allow millions of people to die from hunger in the 21st century would consign Yemen to being one of history’s great tragedies. Let us seize the momentum of the past few days and prevent a humanitarian crisis from becoming a humanitarian catastrophe. I beg the Minister to act now.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)
I begin by paying huge tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). For as long as I have been in the House and long before I entered the House, he has been a great champion of the interests of Yemen. He understands Yemen, as he pointed out, from his early childhood and brings to the issue a level of knowledge and passion that is important in the House. Everyone on both sides of House has emphasised that the situation is a horrible tragedy—nearly 80% of the population currently face a humanitarian crisis. More than 1 million children face food shortages and almost 400,000 literally struggle to know where the next meal will come from.
I will take a couple of moments to talk about the causes and origins of the conflict, because it is important to consider them when addressing it. When I last visited Yemen in the spring of 2014, despite all the underlying fragility—the considerable south-north divides, the sectarian splits between the Houthis and other members of Yemeni society, and the extreme poverty—we were looking at a situation in which the national dialogue seemed to be working. There was a remarkable period of relative stability between 2011 and 2014. I pay tribute to Benomar, who was the UN special envoy at the time, and to the extraordinary work of the ambassadors from the Gulf Co-operation Council, the EU ambassador, who had served in Afghanistan and spoke fluent Arabic, the US ambassador, who was a fluent Arabist, and the French ambassador, who also spoke fluent Arabic. Unfortunately, however, despite all the work done in 2014, the situation deteriorated rapidly so that by the beginning of 2015 we found ourselves facing the horror that we see today. There are certain lessons that we need to draw from that to understand how we went wrong and to solve future conflicts.
The first and central thing is to apportion blame. We cannot shy away from the fact that the actions of ex-President Saleh and the Houthis are at the core of the conflict. They attacked the legitimate Government in Sana’a and propagated this conflict. There is also a broader context that the international community must recognise and take responsibility for. The national dialogue that I saw in 2014 did not do what it was supposed to do. In retrospect, it focused too much on an elite in Sana’a and did not reach out enough to the rural populations. It was not genuinely inclusive and left a situation in which the Houthis in particular felt that the federal deal offered to them was unfair and that the area that they had been allocated was too small and without access to the sea.
Partly through pressure on President Hadi to reduce fuel subsidies, international development actors helped to create a situation in which instability was encouraged by the cutting of those fuel subsidies—although much of the responsibility must lie with President Hadi and how he implemented the cuts. Corruption in Sana’a and Yemen was also a huge mobiliser of popular resentment against the Government and that was not adequately addressed.
Keith Vaz
I thank the Minister for his kind comments. He is giving an impressive exposition of what went wrong. We, like the Americans, are great supporters of Yemen, so should we have done more at the time to monitor the situation and to move the dialogue in the right direction? Did we withdraw far too early?
Rory Stewart
I pay tribute to Jane Marriott, our ambassador at the time, to the work done by her predecessor, John Wilkes, and to the DFID work that took place behind the scenes. Such things are difficult and I am not in the business of second guessing officials, but the lesson we should draw from all these conflicts is the one that I pointed to earlier: the international community must be cautious not to become over-optimistic and to be aware of the ways in which talking to an elite in the capital and engaging with the civil society in Sana’a misled us about the real resentment that existed in the countryside.
How do we address the situation now? Central to that is understanding that decades of ex-President Saleh’s policies lie underneath the problems we face today. He deliberately exacerbated those tribal divisions, and deliberately created that culture of corruption and impunity, which he is now so expertly exploiting in order to maintain instability in that country. But we cannot be naive here: simply removing ex-President Saleh is not going to solve this problem on its own. The problems in Yemen go much deeper than that and need to be addressed systematically, from politics through to the humanitarian dimension.
Let me touch on those two things. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, politics is at the centre of this—politics, politics, politics. Characteristically, he asked 10 questions, which I have to deal with in less than 10 minutes, but I will try to deal with them quickly before moving on. Hon. Members will notice that his 10 questions have largely focused on what I would call the high politics and diplomacy, and I will try to address them one by one and then take this into the bigger issue of the solution to the Yemeni conflict. First, he asked what the UK’s position is in relation to the Kuwait talks. The answer is that those talks were held between the parties in the conflict—the regional players and the Yemenis themselves. The UK ambassador to Yemen was present and was in the room, but in a diplomatic capacity and not as a party to the conflict.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked what support we are providing to Saudi Arabia. The current operations are, of course, Saudi-led, and the United Kingdom is not embedded in the Saudi military operations. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) pointed out in his statement today, we are very clear that the investigation needs to be led, in the first instance, by the Saudi Government, just as similar investigations of the United States or the United Kingdom Governments for actions taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq were led first and foremost by those Governments. He has said, however, that if that investigation is not adequate, he will look at this again.
Stephen Doughty
The Saudi Foreign Minister told us yesterday that the UK had provided both technical and personnel support to investigations for the past six to eight months, and that advice had been provided on targeting. As one of the guardians of the humanitarian principle, will the Minister be clear about what support has been provided by the Department for International Development specifically in relation to investigating violations of humanitarian law?
Rory Stewart
I am happy to provide more detail, but, in essence, we currently provide two forms of support and I will elaborate on this in a written answer. We provide training and capacity support, which includes statements about international humanitarian law, but that is not about this military operation—that is in general for the royal Saudi air force. Secondly, my Department and the Foreign Office have worked together through the UN process on international humanitarian law, particularly in a meeting in Geneva last month—this is partly in response to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East—where we are pushing for more staffing for the independent UN investigation on human rights through the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and, in particular, its Yemen office.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a question about arms sales. We take those sales very seriously. As Members from both sides of the House are aware, the report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls was divided, but we continue to monitor carefully all actions of international humanitarian law, although this is not a prime responsibility of my Department. He asked whether we would be in the room for peace talks, and we absolutely will. Our current ambassador, Edmund Fitton-Brown, is very close to the UN representative, and so long as these are not talks taking place between the parties to the conflict, the UK is present in a diplomatic capacity.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to call King Salman of Saudi Arabia and President Hadi. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, on Sunday the Foreign Secretary met the Saudi Foreign Minister, but more than that the Saudi Foreign Minister came to this House of Commons yesterday to be directly accountable to this Parliament. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East spoke to President Hadi in a visit to Saudi Arabia last week. The right hon. Gentleman asked about sanctions. Of course we will continue to put pressure on all parties to this conflict to support the current peace. He asked whether we are providing support for the special envoy, and the answer is that the UK Government are providing more than £1 million of direct support for the staff of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, the UN special envoy to Yemen.
In the remaining minutes, I hope to talk about the broader context, in addition to all the good 10 points the right hon. Gentleman raised. We need to look at politics at local and regional level.
Keith Vaz
This must be a first—a Minister is given a set of questions and he replies to every one of them. I do not think that I have ever come across that in my 29 years in this House—well done. Will the hon. Gentleman address the issue of the ceasefire? We know that we have 72 hours. Can we please try to ensure that it is longer, because 72 hours is not enough? I know that there are many other things to talk about, but that ceasefire is critical.
Rory Stewart
We absolutely agree that the ceasefire is critical and that 72 hours in and of itself is not enough, but as the right hon. Gentleman is so aware the only way in which we can do any kind of peace or conflict resolution all the way from sub-Saharan Africa right the way through to Cambodia is to start with small steps. It is vital to begin with those 72-hour moves. That is why the UN special envoy has done it and why we and the United States are strongly supportive of it. We will of course do all we can to extend that ceasefire, because we do need longer. Indeed, what we want is a permanent political settlement in place, which brings me to the broader question of politics. There are two dimensions to that: we need to acknowledge that this is taking place in a broader peninsula context, and that lasting peace will come only if we address the local-level conflicts taking place on the ground in Yemen. Our humanitarian response—this is a debate about the humanitarian crisis—needs to take that into account.
I wish to make some brief observations on the nature of DFID’s humanitarian response. First, we need to approach this with some degree of humility. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly pointed to the important role that the United Kingdom plays. We do indeed hold the pen at the Security Council. We have put £100 million into this, and it is true that we play an important role in the Quad, but we are not the only people here and we cannot act as though we are. We have to make sure that we acknowledge the role of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other states such as Oman, but above all we must acknowledge the role of the Yemeni people themselves. The only real solution here will come from the Yemeni people. We need to acknowledge again that, although the United Kingdom has put in £100 million, the current UN appeal is only 47% met. We were very pleased at the UN General Assembly to raise another £50 million from other partners, but we still need to do much more.
We cannot at the moment, as an international community, adequately address all the 21 million people who are currently at risk, so we need to prioritise. We need to make sure that we focus on the most vulnerable people. First, we need to protect civilians; secondly, we need to make absolutely sure that we focus on food security—it is an absolute tragedy that we are seeing extremes of malnutrition and we must make sure that that does not turn into a famine; and thirdly, we need to make it absolutely certain that, whenever we are dealing with anyone in Yemen, we look at preventable disease. It is a tragedy that cholera is now breaking out in Sana’a.
Commerce and shipping will be absolutely central. We need to get the markets working, get the ships into Yemen, and understand that this is not just a development and a humanitarian response.
I will finish by paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, to the very strong work both of the UK Government and of the UN special envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, and to the extraordinary work of the humanitarian organisations, which work in very difficult circumstances. I am talking about the suffering that has been experienced by Mercy Corps, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières. Above all, it is the Yemenis—not just internationals—who are bearing the burden of this, who are out in those field offices, and who are delivering aid in some of the most testing conditions on earth. If we can plan now for the medium to long term, think hard about the stabilisation and the politics that are at the root of this, and ensure that we get the economic framework in place so that if we are lucky enough to have a ceasefire, we are really able to move to a situation in which we have a sustainable economy in Yemen for the future. If we can sometimes do less than we pretend, we can do much more than we fear.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016.
It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Mr. Rosindell.
The draft order that we are considering was laid before the House on 13 July. By way of context, the order is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016, which is referred to as the “2016 Act”, and which was passed by the Scottish Parliament and received Royal Assent from Her Majesty on 28 April.
The purpose of the 2016 Act is to consolidate Scottish laws on insolvency and simply makes bankruptcy policy more accessible, both for the money advice community, which is very helpful, and for those experiencing financial difficulties, which is particularly helpful for them as well.
The drafting of the Bankruptcy consolidation Bill was led by the Scottish Law Commission, which, alongside officials from the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland, undertook a consultation in 2011 on consolidating bankruptcy legislation before the Lord Advocate brought forward proposals for a Bill. The legislation has followed an entirely logical process.
At the moment, bankruptcy legislation in Scotland is considered rather confusing and difficult to follow. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 has been heavily amended over the years, and new primary legislation has been introduced since then, most recently the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014.
As a result of the passage of time, and a number of measures being amalgamated, the legislation has become rather complex, and the time is now considered right to bring the elements together through primary consolidation legislation, and that is exactly what the legislation is. The move has been supported by the money advice and insolvency industry, as reflected in evidence to the Scottish Parliament when the legislation became the 2016 Act earlier this year.
Some provisions of the legislation consolidated require not merely to be restated in Scots law but for the other parts of the UK. That is one purpose of this particular order; we must make sure that it marries up with all parts of the United Kingdom. Articles 4 and 6 accordingly restate provisions on the effect of the discharge from debts and on limitation of actions outside Scotland as a result of Scottish bankruptcies. Article 3 restates the current arrangements for examination in certain Scottish bankruptcy proceedings of persons residing in parts of the UK other than Scotland. In schedule 1, the order also updates cross-references in statutes across the UK, for instance it replaces references to “the 1985 Act” with references to “the 2016 Act”, which was passed in Scotland. Lastly, article 5 restates minor procedural provisions about powers of the Secretary of State.
The United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government, Ministers and officials have all worked closely together to ensure that the order makes the necessary amendments to UK legislation in consequence of the 2016 Act of the Scottish Parliament.
I hope that you will agree, Mr Rosindell, that the order is an appropriate use of the powers in the Scotland Act and a further example of the UK Government’s commitment to work with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is pleasure to be before you today, Mr Rosindell. To get straight to the point, this is a tidying-up exercise, which is long overdue. People who are facing the misery of bankruptcy and people trying to advise them do not need any complications on top of what they have got. The order does exactly the right thing by putting that right, and the Opposition are happy to support it.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
In my long perusal of the primary legislation, I notice that there was a debate in the Scottish Parliament on the move from the 1985 Act to the 2016 Act in which “forthwith” was changed to “without delay”, so I suggest that we proceed without delay.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I know that my hon. Friend has said that we should proceed without delay, but being a politician and as I am here, I feel that I should speak. What I liked in the explanatory note, and what the Deputy Leader did not refer to, is its reference to section 104 of the 1998 Act. It states:
“Section 104 of the 1998 Act provides for subordinate legislation to be made by the UK Government”.
Hopefully, that is important for the future, and I am looking forward to more subordination from Westminster to Holyrood. On that note, I am happy to support the order.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
There is nothing more that I wish to add, Mr Rosindell. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017 View all Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets; I see some have already done so. I remind Members that no refreshments other than the water provided may be consumed during Committee meetings. Will all Members ensure that their mobile phones, pagers and iPads are off or turned to silent?
Not everyone is familiar with the procedure of a Public Bill Committee, so it might help if I briefly explain how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report any written evidence. We will then begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses, amendments and new clauses have been grouped together for debate. Where a group includes the words “clause stand part”, that means Members should make any remarks they wish to make about the content of the clause during the course of the debate. Clause stand part debates begin with the Chair proposing the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. There is no need for the Minister or any other Member to move that a clause stand part of the Bill. A Member may speak more than once, depending on the subject under discussion.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18 October) meet at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October.—(Jane Ellison.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jane Ellison.)
Clause 1
Meaning of “eligible charity”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I am grateful to all Members for being here to examine the Bill in detail and to many Members for their participation in the good and constructive debate we had on Second Reading. I welcomed the Opposition’s pledge to support the principles of the Bill, and I hope that today we can submit the Bill to further constructive scrutiny.
I will give a little bit of general background information before specifically addressing clause 1. The Bill makes a number of amendments to the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012. I know there are Members present who served on the Committee responsible for considering that Bill. The changes will ensure that the gift aid small donations scheme operates effectively and flexibly for a greater number of charities and community amateur sports clubs. The Bill also makes minor and technical changes to the tax-free childcare scheme, to improve parents’ experience.
The reforms to the gift aid small donations scheme are intended to simplify and increase access to it, particularly for new and small charities. We heard more about that on Second Reading. That will be achieved by removing a number of eligibility criteria to allow more small and new charities to benefit sooner, which I will discuss in a moment; reforming the community buildings rules to allow more charities to benefit from the important work they carry out in their local communities; simplifying the rule specifying the total top-up payment that charities and CASCs are entitled to claim, which will ensure fairness and parity of treatment between charities that carry out similar activities but are structured in different ways; and future proofing the scheme by allowing contactless donations to be eligible for top-up payments.
Clause 1 substantially simplifies the gift aid small donations scheme by removing two of the existing eligibility requirements, enabling smaller and new charities to access top-up payments much sooner. A number of charities have voiced support for that. Currently, a charity must have been registered for at least two full tax years and have claimed gift aid in at least two of the previous four tax years without a gap of longer than a year. However, the Government are keen to encourage take-up of the scheme, particularly among small and newer charities. Removing the two-year registration requirement will help to achieve that by allowing the up to 9,000 new charities that apply for recognition by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs each year to receive top-up payments as soon as that recognition is granted.
During the Government’s review of the small donations scheme, we heard about the difficulties faced by small charities making irregular or intermittent gift aid claims. The Government therefore consulted on relaxing the gift aid history requirement to only one year, rather than two. However, after listening to the views of the sector, we decided to go even further. Clause 1 removes the two-in-four-year gift aid history requirement entirely, which is a significant simplification for charities. The reforms are a good thing and have been widely welcomed by the charity sector.
The Charity Tax Group commented that relaxing the gift aid history requirement
“will hopefully widen access to the scheme, particularly among smaller charities.”
The Charity Finance Group said:
“The Bill is scrapping these rules and this means that more charities will be eligible and will reduce complexity.”
The removal of the two-year rule and the gift aid history requirement is a meaningful and significant simplification of the gift aid small donations scheme. It will make the scheme more accessible to smaller and new charities. I hope that the clause stands part of the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure for me, too, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon.
As the Minister outlined, clause 1 amends the meaning of “eligible charity” for the purposes of the gift aid small donations scheme, removing the requirement for a charity to have been registered for at least two full tax years before it can access the scheme. The provision also removes the two-in-four-year claims rule, which dictates that a charity must have made a successful gift aid claim in at least two of the previous four tax years with no more than two years’ gap between claims. Those measures will simplify the scheme and allow newly formed charities to access the Government top-up payment.
I am pleased that the Government have taken heed of responses to their consultation on reform to the scheme and scrapped the two-in-four-year claims rule fully. The initial proposal was to replace the rule with the requirement that charities must have made a successful gift aid claim only in the previous tax year. I understand that respondents felt that that could disqualify some charities that are currently eligible for the scheme but did not claim gift aid in the previous tax year for a variety of reasons. In the light of that change, the measures are welcomed by the Opposition and the industry. We are happy to support them. However, I have one concern on which I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance.
The requirement for a charity to have been registered for two years is arguably a way of ensuring that charities are not set up for the purposes of claiming a top-up from the Government illegitimately. The Opposition have tabled a new clause about anti-fraud measures, which we will debate later, so I will not digress too much. However it would be helpful if the Minister would assure me that the Government have carried out an assessment of whether removing the two-year rule poses an increased risk of fraud. Other than that small but important point, the Opposition are happy to support the clause.
Jane Ellison
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson for those points, for her support and for her specific question. By removing the two-year rule, we want the scheme to be more flexible and generous, but we want to ensure that there are some safeguards.
We debated the balance between flexibility, generosity and safeguarding charities on Second Reading. That is why, as the Government made clear in the original impact assessment, the lack of evidence that a cash donation has been made makes the gift aid small donations scheme vulnerable to fraud. We must continue to protect against that but—as we will come to later—that is one of the reasons why the Government are retaining the gift aid matching requirement, which provides sufficient protection while getting the light-touch regulatory balance right. I will say more about that later. I hope that my response is sufficient and that the clause stands part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Meaning of “small donation”
Rebecca Long Bailey
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—
“(a) in the heading after “small”, delete “cash payment” and insert “donation”
(b) in sub-paragraph (1) omit the words “in cash”;
(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—
“(1A) The gift must be made—
(b) by cheque;
(c) by electronic communication; or
(d) by a contactless payment.”
(d) in sub-paragraph (3) after the definition of “cash” insert—
““cheque” means a written order instructing a bank to pay upon its presentation to the person designated in it, or the to the person possessing it, a certain sum of money from the account of the person who draws it;
“electronic communication” means a payment made via the internet or text message;””.
This amendment would extend the range of methods by which payments can be made under the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after “contactless”, insert “or SMS message”.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“, or
(c) by an SMS message”.
Clause stand part.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Clause 2 amends the types of donations eligible under the small donations scheme to include those made by contactless payment. Only cash payments under £20 are currently considered eligible donations. The Opposition support the clause but we question why contactless payments have been singled out in that way.
Amendment 1 would widen the scheme to include donations by text, by cheque or via the internet. A survey carried out by the Charity Finance Group for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Institute of Fundraising and the Small Charities Coalition found that only 36% of the 340 charities surveyed wanted contactless payments to be included in the scheme. It also found that cheques were the method favoured for inclusion: more than 75% of respondents wanted them to be included. Half wanted text donations and two thirds wanted one-off online donations to be eligible. The amendment, which would include all those methods, is supported by the organisations mentioned and by the Charity Tax Group.
The Government’s likely response is that the methods do not need to be included in the scheme because a gift aid declaration can be provided, but the same logic applies to a bucket collection of cash donations: the fundraiser holding the bucket would simply need to hand over a pen and a piece of paper and—voilà—they have a gift aid declaration. However, the point is that it is difficult, albeit not impossible, to get the declaration. Most people send a donation via text in a spur-of-the-moment decision. A follow-up text is then required to ascertain whether the donation is eligible for gift aid, and most people are not as responsive as we would like, so it makes sense to include donations via text in the scheme. As for cheques, I understand that someone who is able to sign a cheque is probably able to sign a gift aid declaration at the same time, but 75% of charities surveyed said that including cheques would increase the efficacy of the scheme for them, so I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reasons for not doing so.
Amendments 2 and 3 would include SMS or text messages in the scheme. For the same reasons that I have already outlined, we see the logic in tabling them and we support them. I hope the Minister will accept our amendment or explain more fully her reasons for not accepting it, but I will not press it to a vote.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We support the amendments. As has been stated, a number of charitable organisations have got together and have come back with a really comprehensive survey that says that charities are hugely in favour of such an approach.
The gift aid small donations scheme is a really good Government initiative that has done part of the job it was set up for, but we can see from the number of people making a claim that it has probably not done as well as was intended—it has not quite reached the number of claims that were expected. That is partly because the way the world works has changed: people are giving through other methods. I rarely put money in a bucket, but I quite regularly make text donations or online donations, and I am as guilty as anyone of not following up with that second text with my name and address for the gift aid. In a world that is moving forward, we need to consider that.
I understand the Government’s reluctance to take on cheques, but it has been really clear from the groups that have come forward, particularly church groups, that they receive an awful lot of their funding from small cheques. It would be much better for them if they were able to claim for cheques under the gift aid small donations scheme. Although that may seem almost a backward step, we need to ensure that the gift aid small donations scheme works as best it can, particularly for small charities that do not have the staff—the people power—to fill in all the forms, which is still a requirement. Widening the gift aid small donations scheme would make it better, particularly for small charities.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I spoke on a similar clause four years ago when this Bill first went through Committee; I think that the hon. Member for Clwyd South was here as well. Looking back, many of the Members who served back then appear to have moved on to far greater things than I have, so they will not be repeating this debate.
It is worth looking back at the debate four years ago, when the topic was whether restricting the measures to cash was appropriate and whether we should include different technologies or different means of giving impulse donations for which getting a gift aid declaration is hard, in order to achieve the objectives of the scheme. The current scheme is worthy. It is meant to give a level of support equivalent to gift aid to small donations, in order to give hard-pressed charities extra money. It is regrettable that four years into the scheme, the amounts claimed are much lower than we thought. Ideas to help charities claim and achieve the £100 million that Government thought this would originally cost are to be welcomed.
Four years ago, I was perhaps a bit prescient on this point; I even referred to contactless payments in that debate. I thought that the world might move on, that cash would become less common and that we would all find different ways of donating, whether by making contactless payments on terminals or by clicking buttons in an app. The Bill risked becoming out of date quickly if we were not careful. I suggested at that point that perhaps the Government should take the power in the Bill to amend by statutory instrument the definition of “cash or cash equivalent” in that situation, so we could keep up to speed with technology and not have to keep coming back every few years to primary legislation to fix it.
Here we are four years on, trying to fix contactless payments. That is quite right, and I will happily support it. We have even included Android Pay and Apple Pay, again quite sensibly, but we cannot predict where we will be in four years’ time. How will impulse donations be made? Will it still be by text message, by app, by cash in a bucket or contactless payments, or will we have found some new technology, perhaps fingerprint swipe? It is hard to imagine where we will be in four years’ time. If we are to keep the Bill as effective as we want it to be, why not have that power available so that the Government can say quickly, “Let’s make a tweak here, and allow this to fall within the scheme”?
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making lucid points with which I agree fully, but he recommends that Ministers could make a change through statutory instrument. Would he perhaps consider allowing them to make the change without a statutory instrument, maybe by short consultation or even ministerial decision? That would be liberalisation.
Nigel Mills
My hon. Friend is being quite generous as a Back Bencher, offering the Government more power than they want to take. I suppose that there would be spending issues if the Government generously expanded some new and risky technology and that Parliament might want to scrutinise that. I would prefer, in my perfectionist world, some order that undergoes parliamentary scrutiny, but I concede the argument he is putting forward.
The then Minister four years ago, who is now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was called a “dinosaur” for rejecting the Labour amendments. I am hoping that this Minister will not be called something like that today, given the liberalising approach that she is taking. The then Minister was not keen to accept the amendments, which were meant to apply to cash in order to help people who do bucket collections and so on, where one cannot get a gift aid declaration, as it is an impulse donation and people are not inclined to stop and give those details.
My argument for amendments 2 and 3 is that an SMS message is also an impulse donation. We see adverts on the TV where it says to text a number with “YES” or “FIVE”. If I do that, I do not provide them with any more information. It is a small, impulse donation. The evidence that we have from the various charity groups is that people do not make a gift aid declaration after doing that.
If we cannot tempt the Minister to accept amendments 1, 2 or 3, perhaps she will think on Report whether she can take the power to allow new ways of donating to be included in future, so that she can gradually evolve the scheme and put the extra money into achieving the objectives that we all share. Especially at this time of year, when British Legion volunteers will all be out doing great work shaking their buckets to collect cash, we want the scheme to be as effective as possible. I fear that, by being too restrictive on how donations qualify, we will not give more money to charities, as we all really want to.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley and other colleagues. It was a great joy to be here in 2012 when the first Bill on small charitable donations appeared. It is lovely to see that contactless donations have made it into this Bill. I am speaking in favour of amendments 1, 2 and 3 because it is important that we expand the methods available.
The recent briefing from the main charitable organisations—the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Small Charities Coalition—has made it clear that, although the scheme has been welcome, it is not reaching the number of charities that it could. The briefing said:
“Only one quarter”
—or 21,300—
“of the charities that could have used the scheme”
—it puts that number at 84,000—
“are using it.”
Clearly, we need to do everything we can to support the development of the scheme, particularly with a new generation of donors, and to encourage and to support the new philanthropists who may be giving by text donation or in other forms.
At the Bill Committee last time around, I was intrigued by a great debate initiated by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). It was possible to include euros in the scheme at the time, although it was not possible to include contactless donations. I am glad that the situation regarding contactless payments has been remedied, but I cannot see the sense in saying that, in one of our great abbeys, churches or cultural buildings, the euro, dollar, yen or whatever may be included in the scheme, but not a simple, humble cheque written in sterling. To me, that does not make any sense. I hope that the Minister considers that point.
Another related point is that this scheme works rather well for churches—I presume it also works well for other faith groups—because many small churches are part of larger denominations. Often the denomination, the diocese or whatever is registered in terms of gift aid. My slight fear, and why I think we need to look at how we can enhance and expand the scheme, is about whether we have the same reach for other small charities, because with a small church or perhaps another small faith group, the registering—the formal bit, the gift aid stuff—has already been sorted out at a higher, larger level. I question whether the scheme always has the same reach for some of the smaller charities in other sectors.
I welcome the positive move on contactless donations but hope, in the same spirit, that the Minister can extend the scope of the proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles and other hon. Members have suggested. It would be truly dreadful if we had to wait another four years to come back to the issue and to thank the Government for including these methods in the scheme.
Jane Ellison
I thank colleagues for that debate; some points were made by veterans of the previous Bill Committee and I will try to respond to them.
Clause 2 is about amending the meaning of “small charitable donation”. Amendment 1 would extend the gift aid small donations scheme to include donations made by cheque, online or by SMS. Amendments 2 and 3 would extend the scheme to include SMS donations.
The scheme was introduced to address a specific problem. That is at the heart of the debate. It is intended to allow charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style top-up payment when it is not practical or feasible to collect a gift aid declaration, such as with street collections. It is not simply a lighter-touch alternative to gift aid. I think this is probably at the heart of our debate. The scheme exists to provide a similar outcome in situations where charities cannot realistically obtain a gift aid declaration, but the Government are clear that, if a charity can get a gift aid declaration and claim gift aid, it should do so. There are obvious reasons for that, as colleagues will appreciate. For example, there is no cap on gift aid, whereas there is on this scheme. For that reason, the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 restricted the scope of the gift aid small donations scheme to small donations in cash—coins and notes. Although I understand entirely the motivation behind the amendments, they are actually contrary to the stated policy intention of the scheme.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I am struggling to understand why the way in which money is donated matters, given that there is a cap on the amount that can be donated anyway. I do not understand why whether a donation is made in cash or by contactless affects the integrity of the purpose of what we are trying to do.
Jane Ellison
We are keen to extend the scheme to cover contactless as well as cash payments, but as those who were here in 2012 will know, the scheme augments what we expect charities to raise through gift aid donations and covers means such as bucket collections that it is just not feasible to do gift aid on. The scheme is capped. We actually want charities to claim as much as possible under gift aid, which is not capped and allows them to form a long-term relationship with donors, as many of us probably know from charities that we give to. From the simple point of view of a charity, a wholesale switch to claiming through this scheme rather than gift aid would move it away from such long-term relationships and limit what it could claim. The scheme is meant to be a complement to gift aid, not an alternative or a lighter-touch version of it, and it would be to many charities’ disbenefit if that were the case.
As I explained on Second Reading, the small donations scheme was never intended to cover methods of donations for which well-established and well-used processes for claiming gift aid already exist, such as donations made by SMS or online. It may help if I explain in a bit more detail the processes for claiming gift aid on electronic donations. As the Minister for Civil Society, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), outlined on Second Reading, there is a simple and well-established process that allows charities to solicit gift aid declarations from donors who make SMS donations. I take the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made about the way people respond to that, but it is a pretty straightforward and well-established process none the less. The donor sends a short code word to a six-digit number—for example, “Dog” to 606060—to donate a set amount through their phone bill. A reply is then sent to the donor thanking them for their donation and asking them for their name, house number and postcode and confirmation that they are a UK taxpayer. Once the donor provides that information, the charity can claim gift aid.
I think that is a straightforward process, and I hope that hon. Members would agree that, in circumstances such as that, where a donor provides a charity with a ready means of making direct contact—their mobile phone number—it is feasible for the charity to solicit a gift aid declaration, and indeed many charities regularly do so.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the Minister not recognise that people generally see text messages as the same kind of thing as putting money in a bucket? They do not want to hang around or have to give their name and address. The two things are really parallel.
Jane Ellison
I have been stressing the point that this scheme was intended to work where it is not practical to establish such a relationship—where someone is passing in the street, is in a rush or whatever, and throws something into a bucket. That is not the same as an SMS donation. Yes, the motivation for an SMS donation might be quite instantaneous—perhaps someone has seen an advert or a documentary, or there is an appeal on the television, or whatever—but in terms of someone’s ability to respond to the gift aid query that follows, the relationship has been established, because they have given their mobile phone number. That is not comparable with a person rushing past someone with a bucket outside the supermarket and throwing something in, where that person is already on their way and cannot be pulled back to fill in a form.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
Given that the Government have not included SMS or internet donations in the Bill, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help the charities that benefit more from those kinds of donations?
Jane Ellison
Of course. If my hon. Friend will let me, I will go through the process for claiming gift aid. I have talked about how that can be done via SMS, but let me talk about how it is done online and how it can be made even easier. Online donations require donors to take the time to enter their name and payment details. The only additional information needed for a gift aid declaration is an address. Donors are then encouraged to tick a simple box to add gift aid at the point of donation. Most of us would agree that in those circumstances it is entirely practical for a charity to ask a donor to complete a gift aid declaration. Many fundraising websites have invested substantial effort in making the process for adding gift aid as simple and straightforward as possible. I am sure it will continue to get even more simple and straightforward; we have all seen the astonishing simplification of the online charitable giving world over the past few years, and we have every reason to think that it will continue to progress.
The Government want to make it even easier for donors to add gift aid to donations made through digital channels; indeed, we recently published consultation draft regulations intended to achieve that. Work is already taking place on gift aid and to make it simpler to make an online donation.
Nigel Mills
Has the Minister had a chance to look at the consultation issued by the Treasury in 2013 on ways of improving gift aid donation? At paragraph 1.8 it set out all the reasons why there was such difficulty in getting a gift aid donation on an SMS donation, and it was looking to consult on ways to improve the situation. The Treasury view seems to have hardened since that consultation, which recognised the difficulties, but the fundamental issues that it raised—getting someone to pay to send a second text message and to type in details on their screen while they are out and about—have proven very hard to tackle, and the take-up has been nothing like as high as for other methods of donation.
Jane Ellison
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I think it relates to how we can make giving under the gift aid scheme even easier; I do not think it is as germane to the issue of how to improve the small charitable donations complement to gift aid. However, I hope what I have to say about contactless will be closer to what he wants to hear. I confess that my familiarity with paragraph 1.8 of the document he mentions is not as great as his own, but I will familiarise myself with it when I get back to the Treasury.
As I said, draft regulations about making gift aid donations through digital channels easier are out for consultation; I am sure Members will have a look at them. As for contactless donations, Members may ask how they differ from other forms of electronic donation. The difference is, quite simply, speed. On Second Reading, the Minister for Civil Society used the example of commuters passing through the ticket barriers of a tube station to demonstrate just how quick contactless technology is—we are all familiar with the Oyster scheme, for example. That speed of transaction means that donations collected using dedicated contactless collection terminals have a lot of the same practical issues as bucket collections. Individuals can donate as they pass by a fundraiser without having to stop and talk—it is almost instantaneous. Fundraisers therefore do not have the opportunity to engage donors and solicit gift aid declarations. That is not the case with other methods of electronic donation, as I have explained. A lot of work is going on, as the Minister for Civil Society said in the debate. Big charities are already showing significant advances in technology: their terminals replicate the simple cash payment as nearly as we can imagine, and we expect to see them in use pretty quickly—they are already being trialled.
As for cheques, I understand that they remain a popular method of payment, particularly among older people, but writing a cheque is not an instant process. The payer needs to write the date, the payee’s name and the payment value, both in words and numerals, and then sign it. Our contention is that, if a donor has the time to stop and write a cheque, it is not unreasonable to suggest that he or she also complete a gift aid declaration. We are all familiar with those small envelopes with the simple form on them; they have only a fraction of the number of items to fill in that a cheque has. Moreover, by writing a cheque the donor is already providing some of their details to the charity, so the additional information needed for a declaration is relatively small. We believe that it is entirely feasible to obtain a gift aid declaration in those circumstances.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Perhaps I can suggest a scenario that may help the Minister. If an elderly person in their home sees something on television for a charity and they then sign a cheque and put it in the post, with no details about how to contact them on it, how does the charity get back to that person?
Jane Ellison
I understand the point, but I am not entirely clear how adding cheques to the scheme would help. I want to stress that, if we make changes that encourage charities to switch to claiming under this scheme, essentially moving away from trying to claim under gift aid, that will severely limit—cap—the amount they can claim and it will also prevent them from forging a relationship with the donor. I accept that there might be circumstances, like that one, in which claiming under gift aid might be more difficult, but the answer is not to include cheques in the scheme. The scheme has always been about trying to replicate the instantaneous cash-collection type of situation.
Anna Turley
I am still a bit confused. I appreciate the point about trying to keep people focused on gift aid as the preferred means of donation, but the whole purpose of the Bill—its raison d’être—is to ensure that the scheme
“operates effectively and flexibly for the greatest number of charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs”,
and we have heard that only a quarter of the charities that could use the scheme are doing so at the moment. Surely, therefore, we should be encouraging more charities to use it, rather than pushing them towards gift aid only. This scheme is much more accessible and more suited to small and locally based charities.
Jane Ellison
We want the charities to use both methods, and there is evidence that many do. The scheme was always envisaged as a complement to gift aid, so it is not an either/or.
I totally accept that there is always more to be done in getting charities to claim gift aid. In the Second Reading debate, the Minister for Civil Society talked about the charities day that is coming up and I mentioned that HMRC has an outreach team, which has already delivered more than 600 sessions with charities, talking about how they can make the most of what is on offer. Of course we want to see donations maximised. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said, that we have not yet reached the point we wanted to, but the Bill takes us a good way in the right direction.
We do not want to incentivise a switch to this scheme from gift aid. In any case, there is a matching requirement, so any charity would have to do gift aid to access this scheme. We will perhaps debate that matching requirement later. It is important. We mentioned it briefly in terms of the assurance process.
The Government’s position has always been clear. The scheme was introduced to provide a payment similar to gift aid when charities cannot obtain a gift aid declaration. If a charity can claim gift aid, it should do so, because that is more beneficial to them in the long term, for the reasons I have touched on. Robust processes exist to allow charities to claim gift aid on electronic donations and the Government will shortly introduce legislation to make doing that even easier. I hope, therefore, that Members will not press their amendments to a vote.
Nigel Mills
This is just a technical question. Does the definition of contactless include Oyster cards? Donations can be made using an Oyster card, by registering to pay a penny a journey, and unused funds can be donated to various charities around London. Would that fall within the definition of contactless or has it accidently been excluded?
Jane Ellison
We believe that the definition of contactless payment is wide enough to cover most likely developments but I am more than happy to look into that further before the next stage of the Bill.
Clause 2 amends, as we have discussed, the meaning of “small charitable donation”, enabling charities to claim top-up payments on donations received using contactless technology. Confirmation comes, as if by magic, for my hon. Friend: can the definition include Oyster cards? Yes it can.
As my hon. Friend knows, because he was one of the people discussing it, the matter was raised during the passage of the 2012 Bill. The gift aid small donations scheme was devised only four years ago, when contactless payment technology was in its relative infancy. At the time, the Government promised to look at the issue again during our three-year review of the scheme, and that is what we have done. I hope that the answer I have just given about Oyster cards shows that we are trying to future proof that aspect of it, as my hon. Friend predicted we would need to do.
The changes made by the clause reflect the fact that there is a clear trend away from cash transactions generally in society. They are declining, while contactless payments are increasing. We accept that, unlike other methods, such as cheques, text messages and online giving, which require donors to stop and actively engage with their chosen charity, contactless donations share many of the same limitations. People can just tap to donate and walk away without stopping to fill in a gift aid declaration. Indeed, in some of the situations in which we find bucket collections, it is almost impossible to stop and give a gift aid declaration. Contactless technology could be extended to augment bucket collections in busy tube stations—I imagine we would be less than popular if charities cause great queues to form in busy tube stations—so it is easy to envisage situations in which this measure would be useful. Accordingly, clause 2 amends the scheme, allowing charities to claim top-up payments on contactless donations of £20 or less.
Although the take-up of contactless technology among charities is relatively low, we have had feedback from the sector and have seen demonstrations suggesting that the cost of the technology is likely to decrease. Therefore, we anticipate that the take-up will increase. It is important, as the new technology develops—it is developing at a fast rate—and as the charity sector innovates, that the legislation continues to reflect the realities of the way charities are fundraising.
Clause 2 will allow charities to claim top-up payments on donations made using credit and debit cards, as well as services such as Apple Pay and Android Pay. The scheme will therefore become more flexible, and the charity sector will have more opportunities to claim top-ups on small donations of £20 or less. Including that measure in the scheme will not impose any significant extra burdens on charities that choose to use the technology. Charities will not be compelled to use contactless payments if they do not wish to do so.
Clause 2 will without doubt future proof the gift aid small donations scheme, as was discussed in 2012. It will ensure that charities continue to benefit in years to come as contactless technology expands. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I welcome the Minister’s comments. From the contributions from Members on both sides of the Committee, it is clear that there is an issue in relation to some charities being able to avail themselves of the gift aid scheme for the donations. If the Minister will not accept these amendments, will she consider launching a Government review of the gift aid scheme as a whole within the next six months to address the issues that have been raised today?
Jane Ellison
I reiterate the comments I have already made. This is about how we make this scheme, which was always designed to be a complement to gift aid, work. We are separately consulting on some changes to regulations around gift aid, which are designed to make it easier. We are seeing an evolution in the way people are able to donate. The question is whether the amendments are suitable for this scheme, which was always meant to deal with the issue of cash or cash-like transactions—instantaneous donations, bucket collections and donations from people walking by in the street.
I am unpersuaded that a review in six months’ time would add anything to the information we have before us today. It goes without saying that all these things remain under constant review, and this small donations scheme is no exception. It is kept under review in the Treasury—the Treasury keeps charity and tax law under review—and the team there has regular meetings with key stakeholders. The Minister for Civil Society also has extremely regular contact with stakeholders, and I look forward to having contact with charities on charity taxation.
I hope to persuade the hon. Lady that there are already data out there. HMRC publishes a national statistics package every year, which contains an absolute wealth of data, including on the total amount claimed under the gift aid small donations scheme. That is a transparent approach and it allows interested parties to monitor constantly the take-up and the effectiveness of charitable tax reliefs. Of course there is more to do to encourage charities to take up such measures, but the answer lies more in the things I mentioned—the outreach I talked about and the work being done by the Minister for Civil Society—than in some of the changes that have been proposed today.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the fact that the Government have consulted on the gift aid small donations scheme and received a variety of responses. Does the Minister not feel that charities and charitable organisations have largely spoken with one voice in calling for the methods under the scheme to be increased, at least a bit? I understand that things are under review, but do the Government not accept that it might be better to listen to people on this matter? I acknowledge that they have listened with regard to some of the other things they are doing.
Jane Ellison
Picking up on the hon. Lady’s last point, the Government have listened. There is always a bit of scepticism in politics—I think we have all felt it—on whether things change as a result of consultations, but the consultation in question was really open. We consulted and asked for ideas and, as a result the responses we received, made further liberalisations in the regime. I think that we have listened and that I have given good reasons why we do not want to go in the proposed direction for this scheme because of the nature of what it was designed to do. We are looking to future proof it for contactless payments.
On gift aid more generally, as I said, changes are already being proposed and there is a lot more we can do to increase charitable take-up. I am unpersuaded that the issues being advanced in this debate are the ones that will aid take-up without having unforeseen consequences. Perhaps we will debate those issues later in our discussions of other clauses.
Susan Elan Jones
I have a quick question about texts. The Minister spoke about the issue being people engaging with a chosen charity, but I am not sure that it is. For example, one might give to an appeal for a dog that appeared on the television, but the charity might be a wider animal charity. The donor might be drawn to a very specific appeal, not to wider support for the charity. As donors, consumers and even voters are much more fluid in their loyalties, can the Minister not see a case for the support running with the donation, not necessarily the institution it is going to?
Jane Ellison
I understand entirely the point being made, but that takes us into issues relating to the motivation and behaviour of people as they give to charity. I think that relates more to the gift aid scheme itself than to the scheme at hand.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Charities running charitable activities in community buildings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jane Ellison
Clause 3 will simplify the small donations scheme, making it easier for charities to operate while ensuring that the scheme delivers its original policy intention. It is about issues relating to community buildings. The clause also makes certain of the community building rules requirements more flexible, to give more charities the opportunity to benefit from the scheme. Clause 4 ensures that, for “connected charities” running charitable activities in community buildings, the rules retain the flexibility to claim top-up payments under the gift aid small donations scheme in the way that best suits their circumstances.
To explain the background, when the gift aid small donations scheme was introduced in 2013, the core principle was that each charity should be entitled to one allowance to top up their gift aid claims in circumstances in which asking a donor to complete a gift aid declaration was really not practical. As we have just discussed, that might be during a bucket collection or church service. The intention was also, most definitely, that the rules should operate as equitably as possible and not give manifestly unfair results when similar charities doing similar things in a similar way just happen to be organised differently. For example, the rules treat “connected charities” as if they are one charity for the purposes of the gift aid small donations scheme. It might help if I explain that, put simply, broadly charities are connected when they are controlled by the same people and have similar objectives. In that way, a charity is entitled to one allowance. For example, the head office and the regional offices could together register as one single charity, or each office or local branch could register separately. I am sure that everyone agrees that that is a fair and necessary rule.
Charities that regularly carry out charitable work in local communities are able to claim community buildings allowances in addition to the one core or main allowance. We want to ensure that, where a charity has a presence and is engaged in valuable charitable activities in our communities, such as in a church or village hall, it may claim a top-up allowance in respect of the local donations. Again, I do not think that anyone would argue that that was unfair. However, we have come to realise that the rules as cast do not always give the outcome that the Government want, or deliver on the intent of the scheme.
Some charities are able to claim many more allowances than others simply by virtue of the way in which they are structured, which is different, even though they might be carrying out similar activities in a similar way to the others. That disparity is acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of charities that can benefit from double allowances, as is the need to rectify the problem to restore the original policy intent.
The changes made by clause 3 will therefore make it clear that charities may claim one allowance, currently set at £8,000, or a community buildings allowance for each community building, with a maximum allowance for each building being £8,000. For example, therefore, a charity with three community buildings will, assuming that it has collected enough donations, be able to claim a top-up on £8,000 in respect of each of those community buildings. It will not, however, be able to collect an additional allowance in respect of any donations collected by its head office. That change will remove the scope for some charities to be able to double-claim allowances.
In making the change, we are adopting the approach that many respondents to the consultation suggested both as a way to ensure equity of treatment, and as a simplification of the scheme. In addition to simplifying the operation of the rules, the clause also makes the community buildings rules much more flexible and generous. At the moment, only donations actually made in the community building while charitable activities are being carried out count towards the community buildings allowance—that is, the amount of donations on which top-up payments may be claimed.
The Government, however, recognise—as I am sure we all do—that many charities carry out charitable activities in a community building, but collect donations to fund that valuable work outside the building itself, such as in collection tins in the local area. One hon. Member at least was taken back to his bob-a-job days with the scouts by our debate, but that is a perfectly good illustration of what we are talking about.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I shall try to keep my comments brief. Clauses 3 and 4 relate to the community buildings rule. Additional top-up payments may be made to those charities that meet and collect small cash donations in a community building. Every charity is entitled to an £8,000 a year allowance. Charities that carry out charitable activities in one or more community buildings can claim additional top-up payments of £8,000 per building subject to certain criteria. As the stewardship comprehensive guide to the scheme explains:
“A community building is a building, or part of a building, to which the public or a section of the public have access at some or all of the time.
So, a building which is kept locked other than at the times that Sunday services are held will qualify, provided that the public have access to it when it is open for public worship. Equally, if a church rents space in a local community centre on a Sunday morning, for the purpose of Christian worship, provided that the public have access to it, the use by the church on a Sunday will mean that the parts of the community centre used exclusively by the church will qualify as a community building.”
The community building is eligible if the charity carries out charitable activities on six or more occasions in the tax year with a group of at least 10 people. Clauses 3 and 4 would make a series of changes to the rules governing community buildings. Clause 3 would allow a charity to claim up to £8,000 from small donations raised anywhere, or up to £8,000 from donations collected from each community building it has. In the latter case, donations would include those made in person in the local authority area in which the community building is situated. Clause 4 affects the rules for connected charities making claims under the scheme where one or more of the charities run charitable activities in a community building. The House of Commons Library briefing paper summarised the change, stating that a group of charities will be entitled to claim
“up to £8,000 small donations made in the local authority area in which each community building is located.”
Alternatively it would be able claim
“up to £8,000 small donations made anywhere in the UK.”
As the first would generally be more beneficial, that would be the default option. The Opposition are very happy to support these changes to the rules governing community buildings. However, the Charity Tax Group has raised one point. It has called for a review of the requirement for there to be at least six events a year in a community building, and that they must be attended by at least 10 people. The group said that the rule is “arbitrary” and “impractical” for many charities, especially those in isolated community buildings or that have peaks in use, for example. Could the Minister use this opportunity to address the Charity Tax Group’s concerns about that rule? Other than that point I have no further comments.
Jane Ellison
The issue is really about the balance that we are trying to achieve. It is about trying to ensure that we keep a light touch in terms of what we ask of people claiming under the scheme. We feel that a reasonable balance is struck by the requirement that charities must carry on their charitable activities six times a year and, as the hon. Lady said, to be attended by at least 10 people. Most charities that are regularly active in most communities should be able to meet the requirements. It is not so generous that it is easy to contrive to meet it, and this is the issue. There will be other opportunities, in our debate on the Bill, to talk about striking that balance, but it is important to remember that protecting our precious charities means ensuring that we do not allow the rules to be so easily circumvented that abuse is widespread and that charities and the sector attract criticism for it.
We feel that this is a reasonable balance to strike. It is a light-touch requirement, but it is important to ensure that people do not contrive to work around it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Childcare payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jane Ellison
We now change tack slightly. The second issue addressed by the Bill is childcare payments. Clause 5 will make a number of minor, technical amendments to the Childcare Payments Act 2014, which introduced a new Government scheme to provide tax-free childcare. We had a broader debate about childcare on Second Reading, but I make it clear to the Committee that these are technical amendments to ensure that the scheme works for the benefit of parents who claim financial support for their childcare costs. I will first explain how the tax-free childcare scheme will work and then explain the changes and why they are needed.
Tax-free childcare will support working parents and help with the costs of childcare, enabling them to go out to work or to work more. Parents will be able to set up a childcare account online, deposit money into their account and receive a 20% top-up from the Government to pay their childcare providers. For every £8 a parent pays towards their childcare costs through the account, the Government will provide a top-up of £2. Parents will be able to receive up to £2,000 of support towards childcare costs of up to £10,000 per child per year, up to the age of 12. That support will be doubled for parents of disabled children, who are entitled to up to £4,000 top-up on childcare costs of up to £20,000 per year, up to the age of 17.
Tax-free childcare is digital by default. Parents first apply for and then use their childcare account online, although non-digital routes will of course be provided for those unable to use the default digital form. HMRC will check a parent’s eligibility for tax-free childcare. Parents will then be able to open and pay into a childcare account for each of their children, and the Government will top up the account. Parents can then use their childcare account to pay for a regulated childcare provider.
We are ensuring that childcare accounts are as simple as possible for parents to operate, because we do not want to add to their burdens. Once HMRC has confirmed that a parent is eligible, the parent is entitled to use the scheme for a three-month entitlement period. Each quarter, parents must confirm their circumstances and that they still meet the eligibility requirements, with a quick online declaration for all their children at the same time. Tax-free childcare will be trialled with more than 1,000 parents later this year and gradually rolled out from early next year.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I speak as a father. My wife and I take advantage of exactly this scheme. Digitising the process once the employer has put it in place is very helpful, but will the Minister look at digitising the process that the employer follows to get the childcare vouchers registered initially? Most employers are still using the paper mechanism for that, which delays the system somewhat.
Jane Ellison
I note my hon. Friend’s point and will ensure that it is looked at. It relates to a different aspect of the childcare provision that the Government provides, but he neatly illustrates the point that we do not want the process for getting support for childcare to be onerous. Tax-child childcare, which is designed to be digital by default, is a move forward.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Will the Minister set out what conversations she is having with colleagues in the Department for Education about ensuring adequate places for children? She may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee has raised concerns about the number of childcare places available to parents. It is all good and well to put schemes in place to help parents, but we need to make sure that there are places for children to take up.
Jane Ellison
Although not directly germane to the Bill, I am happy to draw the hon. Lady’s remarks to the attention of colleagues in the Department for Education. I suspect that they have already noted the PAC’s reports—I think most of us as Ministers would take great note—but I will of course ensure that they see the point she has made.
To reassure the Committee, HMRC has been user-testing its systems with parents with regard to tax-free childcare. Over 400 parents have been consulted so far. That allows HMRC to improve the services it offers to parents. As a result of that user testing, the first change that the Bill proposes relates to the quarterly reconfirmation process. HMRC has the power to change the length and entitlement period to make parents’ online journey as simple as possible. At the moment, they can change the standard three-month period by up to one month, so entitlement periods of between two and four months can be set. The one-month rule does not allow reconfirmation dates for all of a parent’s children to always be aligned—for example, where a parent applies for a childcare account for an additional child at a later date, or if a new household is formed. If the application is made in the middle month of their existing entitlement period, then alignment for reconfirmation is not possible.
Let me give the Committee an example. Helen is returning to work after maternity leave for her second child, Jenny. She already has a childcare account for her first child, Iain. Her current entitlement period for Iain runs from January to March. She is returning to work on 15 February. Whether the first entitlement period for Jenny is shortened to two months or lengthened to four months, it will not align with that for Iain. Therefore Helen is faced with two online reconfirmation journeys a quarter instead of only one. This amendment to the Childcare Payments Act will allow entitlement periods to be varied to between one month and five months. That will allow HMRC to always give parents such as Helen a single reconfirmation for all her children.
I am taking the second and third changes made to the Childcare Payments Act by this clause together as they are very similar in nature. Both allow HMRC to set out what online forms parents should use when querying HMRC decisions. The first does this for ordinary review requests; the second does it for requests made outside the normal time limits. Parents can query any HMRC decision that adversely affects them, for instance a decision that they are not eligible or a decision to impose a penalty on them. If they remain unhappy after the review they can appeal to an independent tribunal. As I have set out, tax-free childcare is a digital-by-default system. Parents apply to open childcare accounts, and then use those accounts, via online forms set out by HMRC for that purpose.
These amendments give HMRC the power to specify in regulations the online forms to be used by parents when requesting a review of any HMRC decisions. That will allow tax-free childcare to be consistently digital by default across the full service. Regulations under these powers will provide the same safeguards for those unable to interact digitally with HMRC as in-scheme regulations. The safeguards allow those unable to interact digitally to get the same service through other means, which is important. The safeguards are in regulation 22 of the Childcare Payments Regulations 2015.
In conclusion, these are minor, technical amendments to the Childcare Payments Act 2014 that will allow HMRC to improve parents’ experience and the consistency of tax-free childcare. I therefore urge the Committee to accept that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I will keep my comments brief. Clause 5 relates to the Government’s tax-free childcare scheme and makes minor changes to the Childcare Payments Act 2014, which is the legislative basis for the scheme. First, it would allow HMRC to vary the entitlement period in certain cases by two months rather than one, as currently stated in the legislation. The entitlement period refers to the period of time after which parents must confirm that they still meet the eligibility criteria. Typically this must be done quarterly; however, HMRC can vary that in certain cases. Clause 5 changes this variable amount to two months, to
“enable alignment of eligibility periods for additional children when parents already have another child in the scheme.”
We certainly welcome these proposals.
The other change relates to parents who want to apply for a review of a decision made by HMRC that affects them, or who wish to do so outside the usual time limits. Normally that must be done within 30 days of being notified of the decision, although that timeframe can be extended. The clause also allows regulations to be made to specify the form and manner of such applications. I believe that the Government’s intention is to allow such applications to be made digitally, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
These are technical changes, and the Opposition do not oppose them. However, we have significant concerns about the tax-free childcare scheme more broadly. I will not say more about that now as we are debating the finer points of the Bill, but we will perhaps revisit that at a later stage.
Jane Ellison
I will of course draw the hon. Lady’s wider comments about childcare to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
Kirsty Blackman
I feel that as someone who is likely to be using the tax-free childcare scheme for eight or nine years, it is sensible for me to make some comments. The current childcare voucher scheme is quite cumbersome—particularly given the paper methods that are used—and difficult for people to access, so I am pleased that the Government have listened to comments about the need to change how parents can access the scheme and ensure that there is consistency. I am pleased that the Government have piloted online access and listened to parents about making changes to that.
I have a couple of questions. First, I would like to check that the Minister is committed to ensuring that during the scheme’s roll-out, which I understand will happen next year, it is kept under constant review and feedback from parents is looked at. A relatively small group of 400 or 1,000 parents may not cover all the circumstances that we might see once the scheme is completely rolled out, so it would be useful if the Government were to continue in listening mode, and I would very much appreciate that assurance.
My other question relates to the conversations about the scheme with the Scottish Government. At the SNP conference at the weekend, announcements were made about changes that the SNP Government will make to some of the ways in which parents in Scotland can access childcare. What discussions have the UK Government had with the Scottish Government about how this Government’s new tax-free childcare scheme will link into the Scottish Government’s consultations on and proposed changes to the types of childcare that parents can access with their free hours? The Scottish Government are looking at making changes to the flexibility of the free hours that are provided to parents in Scotland and the settings that parents can access with that childcare provision. How will that scheme in Scotland link to the tax-free childcare scheme? Have the UK Government had any conversations yet about that with the Scottish Government? If not, will they commit to doing so?
Jane Ellison
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Of course we want the tax-free childcare scheme to work for parents. It is designed to make their lives easier, and that must be central to the way we approach the roll-out, which will be gradual, robust and extensively trialled with a variety of parents, to ensure that we replicate as many different circumstances as possible, as she said.
On the hon. Lady’s second point, we always deal with issues that relate to the devolved Administrations as appropriate. I will look at her broader point about how different childcare policies interact, but I do not think that that is directly relevant to the clause. In general terms, I reassure her that we are always assiduous in ensuring that where there are issues of interaction with the devolved Administrations that pertain to Bills, those are sorted out at official level ahead of proceedings such as these.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jane Ellison
Clause 6 provides that the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Both the gift aid small donations scheme and the tax-free childcare scheme apply to the UK as a whole. The Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 included a provision to make the gift aid small donations scheme an excepted matter for the purposes of the Northern Ireland devolution settlement. A legislative consent motion was approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly in November 2012, providing consent for the UK Parliament to amend schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to make the scheme an excepted matter. No legislative consent motion is required from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Following a legislative consent debate in 2014, schedule 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was amended to make the childcare payments scheme an excepted matter for the purposes of the Northern Ireland devolution settlement, so the scheme applies in Northern Ireland in the same way as in the rest of the UK. No legislative consent motion is required from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Childcare Payments Act 2014 at section 74 defines the extent as England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the view of the UK Government the provisions of the Bill are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, so that no legislative consent motions are required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jane Ellison
The clause simply provides that the changes to the gift aid small donations scheme will take effect from 6 April 2017. This will allow charities to benefit from the changes at the earliest opportunity. Changes to the tax-free childcare scheme will take effect two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Saving and transitional provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jane Ellison
Clause 8 makes minor technical changes to ensure that a charity that has merged with another before 6 April 2017 does not inadvertently lose an opportunity to claim top-up payments for an earlier tax year as a consequence of the removal of two of the eligibility criteria from that date.
I explained earlier that the Bill makes changes to the eligibility criteria for claiming top-up payments under the small donations scheme. I explained that currently charities must have a gift aid history before they can claim under that scheme; in other words, they must have made a successful claim in two out of the previous four tax years.
Currently, if a new charity has taken over the activities of one or more charities, it may apply to HMRC for the gift aid history of the old charity to be taken into account for the purposes of the small donations scheme. If certain criteria are met—the old and new charities having similar purposes, for example—HMRC will issue a certificate that allows the new charity to claim top-up allowances on the strength of the old charity’s gift aid history. In other words, those rules ensure that when a new charity takes over an old charity it is not automatically denied access to the gift aid small donations scheme because it cannot meet the eligibility requirements.
As Members have heard, the Bill will abolish the two-in-four eligibility criterion and the need for new charities to have a successful gift aid history, so the merger rules will largely become redundant from 6 April next year. However, a charity may have taken over the activities of an old charity before April 2017 and want to take advantage of the merger rules to claim top-up payments under the scheme for an earlier tax year.
The changes made in clause 8 therefore retain the merger rules in their current form for cases in which a charity has taken over the activities of another, or more than one other, before 6 April 2017. The time limits for making an application to HMRC for the merger provisions to apply mean that a merger could take place before 6 April 2017, but either the charity has not made its application before that date or the charity has made its application but it has not yet been accepted by HMRC. The transitional provisions included in the clause will ensure that applications may still be made by a charity, and accepted by HMRC, in respect of mergers before 6 April next year.
The practical implications of the clause are obviously time-limited, because they apply only to mergers pre-April 2017. Nevertheless, without the clause, some charities that merged before that date may unexpectedly lose their entitlement to top-up payments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Abolition of Gift Aid donations threshold
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must carry out an assessment of the impact on charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs of amending the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme so as to remove the 10% Gift Aid donations threshold that must be met in order to access the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme, including an assessment of the differential impact on different sizes of charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs concerned.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the assessment before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Charities and CASCs must make Gift Aid exemption claims on donations received in order to make a claim under the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme. The total Gift Aid donations must be at least 10% of the amount of the small donations on which top-up payments are claimed. The new clause would require the Chancellor to assess the impact of abolishing this requirement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Review of anti-fraud measures in relation to Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an assessment of the efficacy of anti-fraud measures designed to regulate the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme, including, but not limited to, the Gift Aid donations threshold.
(2) The assessment shall have particular reference to the efficacy of the matching requirement.”
This new clause would require the government to publish an assessment of anti-fraud measures designed to regulate the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate having the opportunity to move the new clause. Two of the three pieces of evidence that the Committee accepted today strongly support its inclusion in the Bill, one from the Churches’ Legislation Advisory Service and the other from the Charity Tax Group. The other submission is not against the new clause, it just does not mention it. As was mentioned earlier, a paper produced by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising and the Small Charities Coalition says that it is vital that the matching requirement is changed or removed.
I take Members back to when the gift aid small donations scheme was first brought in. I was not present, but the Library has kindly produced a briefing that covers some of the matters that were discussed, and particularly the matching requirement. The right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) was the Minister at the time, and I want to quote what he said in the course of the debate on that legislation. Government amendment 30 was added to the Small Charitable Donations Bill, and it allowed the Government to make changes to the matching requirement. He said:
“It will allow us to remove the matching provision entirely…Even so, charities would always need to claim some gift aid in each year to ensure that they can claim under the scheme…It is something that many charities have asked us to introduce”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 98.]
So back then, charities were in favour of flexibility in the matching requirement and argued for it, and ultimately, the Government accepted that.
Having read the comments of Members at that time, I think the reason for that amendment was that the figures are arbitrary. The gift aid small donations scheme was amended fairly heavily during its progress through Parliament, particularly in relation to the matching requirement. When the scheme was introduced, it was suggested that top-up payments should be claimed only for amounts up to £5,000, but that was increased to £8,000. It was also suggested that the ratio of claims through the small donations scheme to gift aid claims should be 1:1 to begin with. The Government moved on that and changed the ratio to 10:1. Both those figures are fairly arbitrary, and the fact that the Government moved so dramatically shows that the figures are not necessarily set in stone.
Small charities have to receive £800 in donations under the gift aid scheme in order to claim the maximum allowance under the gift aid small donations scheme. Some very small charities will not receive £800 in donations that they can claim under the gift aid scheme, but they might receive £8,000 in very small donations, whether through church collections, people writing cheques or people making contactless payments. Unless they have that matching £800, they cannot claim the full allowance under the scheme.
The new clause, which is in my name and is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, would get rid of the matching requirement. It asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out an assessment. Because the change does not need to be made under primary legislation, the Government can carry out the assessment and make the change without being required to bring the matter back before the House in the spectacular way that they have to do with some other things.
Our proposal is widely supported by charities and would very much help the smallest charities, which feel strongly about it. As Members of all parties have stated today, take-up of the scheme has not been as high as expected. I argue that that is because some of the smallest charities are not able to manage the paperwork that is required.
I am not suggesting that we get rid of the requirement to claim gift aid in general. It is reasonable, given the Government’s desire to prevent fraud, that they have charities make at least one claim and fill in the full version of the forms. It is not, however, reasonable for the Government to expect the smallest of charities to go through that cumbersome process to claim the full amount of £800 in gift aid on small donations. That view is strongly supported by the organisations that have taken the time to write to us.
I intend to press the new clause to a vote. I understand that the Government might not want to accept it today, but I would very much appreciate it if they would seriously consider before Report the fact that a 10:1 ratio is possibly not the right arbitrary level. If they will not consider abolishing the matching requirement, will they consider making the ratio 20:1 or 50:1? That would be hugely beneficial to the smallest of charities, which benefit most from the gift aid small donations scheme and do not have the people power to fill in many of the relevant forms. I want them to continue to fill in forms, but not so many.
Rebecca Long Bailey
New clauses 1 and 2 both get to the most important issue for the charity sector: the so-called matching requirement. The requirement is that to make a claim under the small donations scheme, a charity must receive a certain amount of gift aid donations in the same tax year. The total of eligible donations on which a charity can claim a top-up payment is restricted to an amount between equal and 10 times the net donations on which gift aid is claimed for the year.
New clause 1 would require the Government to carry out a review of the impact of abolishing the matching requirement within six months of the passing of the Bill, and Labour’s new clause 2 would require the Government to conduct a review into the efficacy of anti-fraud measures designed to regulate the gift aid small donations scheme, with particular reference to the matching requirement. On Second Reading, the Minister said that the requirement is
“to protect from fraud the small donations scheme, which has substantially fewer record-keeping requirements than gift aid—an important factor that was looked at when the scheme was first designed back in 2012. It is by retaining the rule that donations under the scheme must be matched with gift aid donations that we best can do that.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 215.]
However, as far as I am aware, she did not produce any evidence that the matching requirement is an effective anti-fraud measure.
As we have heard, the sector says that the requirement is a huge barrier for many small charities. They would like it to be significantly reformed, if not scrapped entirely. For instance, the Churches’ Legislation Advisory Service has suggested extending the requirement to 20:1. Given the Government’s reasons for not proposing any amendments to the requirement, the Opposition think that we should simply have a chance to see the evidence that the requirement works.
We agree, of course, that preventing fraud in the scheme is of paramount importance, but if the measure is simply adding a layer of red tape and is not effective, the Government should review it. The Charity Finance Group has highlighted the fact that only 275 reports of suspicious activity were shared between HMRC and charity regulators in 2015, which represents a rate of one suspicious activity per 500 charities. The group considers that to be a sign that fraud in the scheme is not of a high enough level to justify the effects of the matching requirement. That might well be the case, or it could be that the requirement is an effective caveat to the scheme, but we would only know that if there was a publicly available assessment of the effectiveness of all the measures in the scheme designed to combat fraud and of where the requirement sits within that. I can see no reason why the Government would not want to carry out such an assessment, and I hope that the Minister will accept our new clause 2, or work with us to table a Government amendment on Report that deals with any issues or concerns with our wording.
Finally, I would welcome the Minister’s comments in response to evidence produced by the Charity Finance Group, which welcomes the intention behind our new clause but believes that the Government should focus on increasing punishments for those who commit abuse and providing more opportunity for charities to report on suspicious organisations.
Jane Ellison
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, new clause 1 would require the Chancellor to lay before the House an assessment of the impact of removing the gift aid matching requirement within six months of the passing of this Act. New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the efficacy of the scheme’s anti-fraud provisions in the same period.
I should start by saying that I welcome the cross-party consensus on the importance of protecting the gift aid small donations scheme, and charitable tax reliefs more generally, from abuse. Indeed, I completely agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who said on Second Reading:
“We must make sure that any loosening of the rules for access to Government grants or tax reliefs does not provide a further incentive for tax avoiders, albeit a small minority, to set up a charity.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 220.]
She was exactly right to draw our attention to that. The Government also agree with the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who said during his closing remarks on Second Reading that
“it is vital that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent fraud when Government funding or tax breaks are provided, as in this case, to the charity sector. I think that sentiment would get cross-party support.”––[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 247.]
Indeed, I think that sentiment does have cross-party support.
Let me say a little about fraud in the charity sector, which is relevant to the new clause. None of us likes to contemplate it or talk about it, but sadly it exists. As the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), said on Second Reading,
“it is an unfortunate fact that unscrupulous individuals seek to exploit charitable status for criminal purposes.”––[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 250.]
It might shock colleagues to hear that the “Annual Fraud Indictor 2016” document produced by Experian, PKF Littlejohn and the University of Portsmouth’s Centre for Counter Fraud Studies estimates that fraud costs the charity sector about £1.9 billion each year. The report also states:
“Fraudsters are fast, inventive, adaptable and willing to quickly exploit new opportunities.”
I am sure hon. Members will therefore agree that it is vital the Government make sure that any initiatives, no matter how well intentioned, have suitable safeguards in place to limit opportunities for abuse, particularly when those initiatives involve spending public money. Indeed, both the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and the hon. Member for Bootle made exactly that point on Second Reading.
The gift aid matching requirement provides a deterrent for those who would seek to exploit the small donations scheme. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the matching requirement; we have heard them again today. A few hon. Members, including the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Clwyd South, cited a survey by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and others that suggested that the matching rule acts as a barrier to claiming from the gift aid small donations scheme, with 50% of respondents with an income under £10,000 wanting the matching rule to be removed or reduced. However, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to the fact that the same survey also found that only 5% of respondents claimed no gift aid at all, and just 10% felt that they did not claim enough gift aid to make claiming top-up payments worthwhile. Similarly, the Government’s own assessment found that 92% of charities claiming gift aid for the tax year 2014-15 claimed on donations of £500 or more, entitling them to the maximum small donations allowance, which at that time was £5,000. That is interesting evidence that for the vast bulk of charities, the matching rule is not a barrier.
Anna Turley
I would put the burden of evidence and proof back on the Minister. This provision has existed for three years now. Does she have any evidence of its benefit or usefulness, either in promoting the use of gift aid or in reducing fraud? If there is none, then given the clear objection from the sector, I really do not see any benefit to it whatever.
Jane Ellison
First, I would argue that the matching rule has become more relevant because of the provisions in the Bill to simplify the scheme, for example the end of the two-in-four rule. Secondly, I have been sat here musing as I have listened to Members making their points about the need for me to prove that the rules are necessary. I cannot see how that can be done without first relaxing them and then having to report to the House that there had been large amounts of fraud, public money had been wasted and so on. In other words, the only way to prove it is to prove a negative.
Susan Elan Jones
I am a bit concerned, because when we were here a few years ago the example we cited was the Cup Trust, where there was wide-scale evidence of fraud. We asked whether it was registered for gift aid and the answer was yes. I am concerned about linkage.
I appreciate that we are looking at is a review to do with gift aid six months after the Act comes into law, but in view of the changes made last time when we were told initially it had to be same for same—we ended up with something vastly different and vastly better—will the Minister look at those arguments? Even if the Government’s view is that there has to be some sort of matching, it need not necessarily be set at the current level. That is our big concern.
Jane Ellison
Two arguments are being advanced. One is that there should be no matching requirement at all. I am afraid I reject that for the reasons I have given, and I will try to provide more evidence. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Clwyd South makes and I understand that there was movement during the passage of the previous Bill with regard to the ratios. With all of these things it is sometimes about trying to strike a reasonable balance, and I think 1:10 is a reasonable number. It is an easy number from an administrative point of view and it keeps matters much more straightforward for the charities in question. I am glad however that she supports the principle that there should be a matching rule to avoid fraud. I will say a bit more about why we think that is important.
The Government’s own assessment found that 92% of charities claiming gift aid for the tax year 2014-15 claimed on donations of £500 or more. That would have allowed them to claim the maximum small donations top-up allowance, which at the time was £5,000.
It is worth adding that while the 8% of charities claiming on less than £500 of donations would not have benefited from the maximum small donations allowance because of how the matching rule operates, the vast majority would have been entitled to a proportion of that allowance. In fact, 98% of charities claiming gift aid in 2014-15 claimed sufficient amounts to receive a small donations allowance of at least £1,000. I submit to the Committee that with 98% of charities claiming enough to get an allowance of at least £1,000, the rules are not proving a barrier; they are being used and people are managing quite well with them. The figures do not support the assertion that the matching rule is a major barrier. Indeed, I think most people would say that it strikes the balance of reasonableness.
As I have said, the Bill is a simplification measure—it removes the two-year registration requirement and the gift aid history requirement—and leaves only the matching rule as the link between the gift aid small donations scheme and the wider gift aid scheme. The Government have always been clear that a link to gift aid is necessary to allow HMRC to carry out effective compliance activity. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support that principle.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does the Minister agree, in response to the concerns raised by the SNP spokesman, that the Government have done an awful lot to simplify the gift aid claiming process for charities? I speak as someone who has been involved in operating gift aid claims for charities for many years. The process now is incredibly simple in its online form, so it is not the burden that perhaps it was in the past.
Jane Ellison
I think that is right, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are really trying to make this as simple and straightforward as possible, but we need some safeguards. That is why the matching rule is important. I would suggest that requiring HMRC to publish a detailed analysis of compliance activities and the efficacy of anti-abuse rules could be unhelpful. I would hate us inadvertently to provide a roadmap for fraudsters. If there was a requirement to publish that information, it would provide valuable information to that dishonest minority whom the Government are trying to root out.
I would like to reassure the Committee that HMRC works with charity regulators to ensure that charities are properly regulated, the abuse of charities is properly and robustly dealt with, and the tax reliefs claimed are used for charitable purposes. If a charity is suspected of fraud, HMRC will share that information with the Charity Commission, which can consider further action, including removal from the charities register. We have made it easier to report fraud. I hope that it goes without saying that all tax policy remains under constant review, and this scheme is no exception. The Government will of course continue to monitor the effectiveness of the small donations scheme, as they do with all charitable tax relief.
We are very keen to make sure that the good name of all those charities that do wonderful work at international, national and local level is not abused. I will give the Committee just one example. In May this year, three individuals were jailed for a total of 22 years for defrauding HMRC of £5 million in fictitious gift aid claims. I am afraid that there are more examples of large sums of money where that is true. Those people are out there and, as the report I cited earlier pointed out, they are very quick to spot loopholes, however well intentioned.
HMRC publishes a comprehensive national statistics package, to which I alluded earlier, which allows anyone to scrutinise the efficacy of the Government’s support for charities. However, requiring in legislation that the Government publish separate assessments within six months of the passage of the Bill is both arbitrary and unnecessary and, for the reasons I explained, in the case of one of the reviews it is likely to be impossible to prove what it seeks to prove. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their new clauses to a vote.
Kirsty Blackman
Regarding the new clause that I tabled, I have asked the Government to undertake an assessment of the differential impact on charities of different sizes. As I have tried to make clear, both on Second Reading and today, my concern is particularly about the very smallest charities, some of which find that this is a barrier. I am slightly bothered by some of the conversation both today and on Second Reading. Perhaps I am naive, but I do not think that charities generally set out to defraud the Government. That is pretty unusual, and it bothers me how much of this conversation has been slanted towards concern about issues relating to fraud. I appreciate that some people try to commit fraud, but they are a small minority. It is only in relation to the largest amounts of money that we should be particularly concerned about that.
Jane Ellison
I want to clarify my remarks, which were principally centred on the fact that there are people out there who are fraudsters and who would seek to exploit loopholes in charity law and in gift aid rules. My comments were not focused so much on charities themselves being defrauders, although there have been one or two examples of this. Predominantly, this is about people exploiting charity law and the reliefs available in the same way that they exploit other loopholes.
Kirsty Blackman
I am really grateful for that clarification. I was concerned about the tone of some of the conversation that had been taking place. In relation to the new clause that I have tabled, I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the differential impact on different charities of removing the 10% matching requirement. The Government have made it clear, and it has been suggested by charities, that this could be changed to a different level of matching requirement.
The Government have accepted that this is a relatively arbitrary figure. It is good because it is a nice round number, but that is not necessarily helpful, particularly for the smallest of charities. I would very much appreciate it if the Government would consider accepting new clause 1, which looks at an assessment, and which would help those very small charities which most need this matching requirement to be removed.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 3 would ensure that local scout groups, guide groups and Army, Navy and Air Force cadet branches are able to claim individually under the gift aid small donations scheme, rather than being considered as part of a single national charity for the purposes of the scheme.
We have received representations on behalf of those groups arguing that the current treatment under the scheme is unfair. Under the connected charities rules, those organisations are considered to be one charity. However, local organisations fund-raise independently and are independent from one another financially. The Charity Finance Group has suggested that the amount of top-up received by individual scout groups in particular equates to about 17p a year. The new clause would simply allow individual groups to make individual claims through the scheme.
According to the sector, that would improve take-up of the scheme and ensure that small local organisations, which were intended to benefit, are able to do so. I appreciate that there are probably many other organisations with comparable structures that would benefit from similar changes. New clause 3 is more of a probing amendment to try and tease out from the Government why they do not want to reform the scheme in such a way. Perhaps we can return to this issue in more detail on Report. I would welcome any moves by the Minister to review the position and propose an amendment on Report that would catch all similar organisations with comparable structures.
James Duddridge
I dropped off my kids at beavers and cubs; and one of them is going to scouts. In this amendment, would the division apply to the 2nd Thorpe Bay unit, or would it apply to each constituent part, whether beavers, scouts, cubs, guides and so on?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and that is why I would welcome a review by the Minister of the proposal in the new clause. We need to catch more than what is simply on paper at the moment; the provision needs to go beyond the scope of local scout groups, for example. There are many other organisations that would benefit from being included individually in the ways I have proposed and I welcome comments on this point by the Minister. I also point Members to a note that they received this morning from the Charity Finance Group, which makes some helpful suggestions on this very point.
Jane Ellison
The new clause is designed to exempt scouts, guides and military cadet groups from the connected charities provisions of this Bill. We believe the new clause is not necessary.
The connected charities rules are intended to protect the gift aid small donations scheme from abuse and they work in conjunction with the community building rules to deliver fair and broadly equal outcomes for charities structured in different ways.
Without the connected charities rules, large charities would have a perverse incentive to splinter into groups of smaller charities to increase their entitlement to small donations allowances. I am sure none of us would want that to happen. However, it is important to make it clear that while connected charities are entitled only to a single shared £8,000 small donations allowance, they are still entitled to an £8,000 allowance for each of their community buildings.
Anna Turley
I think this is a really important provision that deserves greater explanation from the Government. It goes much more widely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles said. It should seek to include organisations, such as Age UK or Mind, which have much more devolved operational structures. For example, on the back of the loss of the steelworks in Redcar and Cleveland, the number of referrals to Redcar and Cleveland Mind went up by 93%. That charity relies almost entirely on its own local fundraising. That is an exact example of where the charity ought to be able to have a lot more freedom to raise money and keep its gift aid donations locally, rather than having to be part of a national structure. I implore the Minister to take this away and explore it much more widely.
Jane Ellison
I am fairly certain that the hon. Lady’s example will benefit from the Bill. At the moment, that is a good example of where a charity probably does not do fundraising in its premises, if it has a local office. If it fundraises in the local area through quizzes or events or whatever, it will now be entitled to claim against its community building for any activity in the local area. I will obviously double-check, but I think exactly that charity will benefit from the provisions in the Bill, for the very reasons the hon. Lady gives: they are people who have a base, but it is not usually the place where they fundraise. By contrast, when the original debate took place, the focus was on churches and cash donations within church buildings.
As I said at the outset, the new clause is unnecessary because the provisions in the Bill allow for what it proposes. The hon. Lady has neatly illustrated why we would reject it: it carves out a few selected charities, but we want the provisions to benefit a very broad range of charities, some of which are not named in the new clause.
Clause 3 achieves what Opposition Members are seeking to achieve but in a fairer way. It does not carve out a few selected charities, wonderful though they are, to benefit, but looks at how churches and other connected groups can claim more against their activities in a local area. The new clause is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw it.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the Minister for her comments. Before we complete today’s proceedings, I would like to draw her attention to comments made by the Charity Finance Group this morning. It stated that “Scouts and so on often cannot claim under community building rules, because buildings have to be open to the public or a section of the public, some or all of the time. Their huts or barracks are often closed and unless they open up their buildings to the public during their activities or rent out part of their building for community activities, they will not benefit from this rule.”
To address that and deal with some of the issues we have just discussed, the Charity Finance Group has made a suggestion that HMRC could develop regulations and criteria to define local groups for the purposes of the Act, as it has done with other aspects of the gift aid regulations. Would the Minister give serious consideration to that proposal?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 83, page 51, line 23, after “Innovation” insert
“or, in Welsh, Ymchwil ac Arloesedd y Deyrnas Unedig,”
This amendment sets out the Welsh name for UKRI.
Joseph Johnson
It is good to have you in the Chair for the last day of our Committee’s proceedings, Sir Edward, to see us safely through to the end.
Amendment 246 is a minor amendment that places the Welsh language name for UK Research and Innovation on the face of the Bill. Amendments 274 to 276 are consequential and update the English and Welsh language versions of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 to acknowledge the establishment of UKRI.
Amendment 246 agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
United Kingdom Research and Innovation
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 330, in schedule 9, page 92, line 11 after “members” insert—
“(e) at least one member of the OfS Board with at least observer status”.
This amendment would ensure an interface between research and teaching.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 334, in clause 103, page 59, line 11, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would ensure cooperation and information sharing between OfS and UKRI.
Amendment 333, in clause 103, page 59, line 12, after “functions” insert—
“(1A) The OfS and UKRI must cooperate with one another on—
(a) the health of disciplines,
(b) awarding of research degrees,
(c) post-graduate training,
(d) shared facilities,
(e) knowledge exchange and
(f) skills development”.
This amendment sets out where UKRI and the OfS must cooperate on issues at the interface between teaching and research.
Amendment 335, in clause 103, page 59, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would ensure cooperation and information sharing between OfS and UKRI.
Gordon Marsden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this last day, Sir Edward.
Because of the mysteries of grouping, these amendments are fairly far apart on the Order Paper, but fortunately they hang together. The amendments focus on co-operation and collaboration between research and teaching, specifically the relationship between the office for students and UKRI, which we have touched on previously. They spell out what the interface should be between teaching and research.
This question is probably as old as the hills. Ever since universities have been established, no doubt, people have been saying, “What on earth is he or she doing, doing all this teaching and no research?” and vice versa. The issue comes into particular focus after our lengthy discussions about the teaching excellence framework. In that process, reference is made to assessment of the research process. We are moving forward in general terms as well as in this Committee, and I think there is consensus across the Committee not only that research and teaching are of equal value, but that it is a mistake to put either into a silo. We would not previously have said that, even five or 10 years ago, but in general that is the position in the sector now.
The amendments draw on a wide series of comments that have been made about part 3 of the Bill by learned societies and the research and higher education communities. To be pedantic, we are considering the splitting not of the Higher Education Funding Council for England but of its responsibilities. As the Minister pointed out when we discussed this previously, HEFCE will be dissolved under the Bill. However, there is concern that the process of separating teaching and research—in this context, the Research England body—will mean that issues and activities at the interface of teaching and research, such as the health of disciplines, the awarding of research degrees, postgraduate training, the sharing of facilities, knowledge exchange and skills development, might not be effectively identified and supported.
There is no sense of a secret agenda; it is just a case of what can sometimes fall out if there are unintended consequences from perfectly reasonable regulation. I go back to what I and others have said about the weakness of the Bill, which was conceived entirely before the referendum and does not reflect changes since it took place. That is especially true in terms of the issues thrown up by Brexit. Of course one consequence of the referendum, as we all know very well, was a change of Government, a change of Prime Minister and, indeed, a change of Departments—the machinery of Government —that is almost but not quite as significant as the machinery of Government changes introduced in 2007 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, when he split, largely on an age basis, responsibilities for apprenticeships and other elements between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That produced a situation, which continues after the latest changes, in which Ministers and shadow Ministers sit in two separate departmental and Opposition teams. The Minister sits in two teams. I sit more in one team than the other, but have to have a strong connection with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy because of the research issue.
The concerns about the lack of effective identification and support for the list of things that I have mentioned have been intensified by the machinery of Government changes, in particular the division of teaching and research responsibilities between the Department for Education and the new or expanded Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We cannot have an industrial strategy without skills or without higher education, or further education for that matter, so there will have to be that element of co-operation between the two Departments. Our concern, which is reflected in the amendments, is how that will translate and transfer into a strong interface between research and teaching, although what we are talking about will primarily be the responsibility of the Department for Education. I imagine that the Minister will comment on that. In amendment 333, we make specific suggestions about how the process might be accomplished. We do not claim copyright; the Royal Society and many other learned bodies and institutions made suggestions, but they are ones that we are happy to share with the Committee today as they probably cover the most important functions.
We have talked about the OFS and UKRI co-operating with each other on the health of disciplines, the awarding of research degrees and postgraduate training. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central agrees with me that postgraduate training and indeed, the whole position of postgraduates and their future in detailed terms, have received relatively short shrift in the Bill. I hope that that will not be the case in the advice and guidance that will come. Postgraduates too, of course, will be keenly affected by the inter- connectedness of teaching and research, not least because many of them, in order to do research, end up having to do some teaching, although that is probably less prevalent here than in the United States. As someone who was doing postgraduate research and teaching at the same time, I do not think that is a bad thing. The ability to do both activities at the same time, provided they do not impinge on the postgraduate study, is very useful, not least in preserving some clarity of English when writing one’s thesis—but that is another matter.
The amendment proposes a mechanism by which this collaboration could be achieved. The Royal Society, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, has suggested that a committee on teaching and research should be established. I am sure the Minister will say it is not for us to dictate to UKRI, but it would be helpful to probe whether the Government are minded to say to the new body, its new chairman, chief executive and board members that this is something that ought to be high up in their in-tray. We also seek assurance that the requirement for the OFS and UKRI to co-operate will be included in governance documents for both organisations. Again, I am not expecting the Minister to give chapter and verse on that today, but we have in mind things such as operating frameworks, strategic plans and other relevant documents. No doubt that all sounds a little dry for breakfast on a Tuesday morning, but heavy fibre is good for us and that is why I am including it at this point in the proceedings.
The Wellcome Institute, which I am sure hon. Members are familiar with, has also offered thoughts in this area. Teaching and research are intrinsically linked, but that intrinsic link would be lost from higher education if the bond between them were broken. Clause 103 sets out the interactions between OFS and UKRI. Amendment 335 would ensure co-operation and information sharing between OFS and UKRI, strengthening the clause by replacing “may” with “must”—we are back to the old “may” and “must” scenario.
We see positive interactions between teaching and research responsibilities in many institutions, often most clearly in research-led undergraduate projects and modules, not least in the sciences. The Royal Society of Chemistry says:
“Bringing cutting edge research ideas into teaching helps ensure a dynamic and relevant curriculum. Close interactions with researchers can motivate students when considering their future in the chemical sciences. There is a risk that the separation of teaching and research in the new HE architecture will mean that the benefits of research informing teaching and learning practices could be lost. The current draft of the Bill allows for information sharing between the OfS and UKRI. It does not, however, require their cooperation unless directed by the Secretary of State”.
Other learned bodies and societies have contacted me and probably other members of the Committee to make similar points.
This issue is made more pressing because of the new machinery of Government structure and the shared responsibilities across the two Departments. That is why we suggest that the Bill be amended to provide that the OFS and UKRI must co-operate without being required to do so by the Secretary of State. Apart from anything else, the Secretary of State is going to have a hell of a lot in her in-tray—I am thinking of some of the other ground-breaking Government initiatives such as grammar schools and other measures that, by depute, would then fall to the Minister. I am sure the Minister would like to feel that this sort of thing can go ahead freely without him having to sign things off every other week. That is the principle, in a nutshell—a rather large nutshell—of our amendments to schedule 9.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain further how the OFS and UKRI will work together on a range of issues relating to their respective remits. I appreciate the considered tone of his comments and observations. We understand that these matters are important and we have taken considerable care to try to address them when crafting the reforms and the Bill. I am happy to try to give some further clarification now as to how we see those two bodies working.
I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to the continued integration of teaching and research within the HE system. We believe the Bill reflects that and proposes safeguards to ensure joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information between the OFS and UKRI. Both organisations also have a statutory duty to use their resources in an efficient and effective way, meaning they will look for all opportunities to collaborate and share information.
On the specific points made by the hon. Gentleman, I will start with those relating to changes to the machinery of Government in July. We understand his concern about the potential impact of those changes, with the Department for Education now having responsibility for higher education but research policy remaining the responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. For my part, I am committed to my role across the two Departments and will be working closely with the two Secretaries of State and the heads of the two new organisations coming into existence through the Bill, UKRI and the OFS, to ensure a coherent approach and to maintain the continuity of day-to-day business.
As the Committee has seen, the Bill is supported by me, a shared Minister across the two Departments, and as the hon. Gentleman will see on the back page of the Bill, it also has important support from senior members of the Government. That provides significant continuity across the two Administrations we have seen since the general election, including the current Prime Minister, who supported the Bill in her former capacity as Home Secretary, and the current Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and so on and so forth. There is significant continuity.
Gordon Marsden
We entirely welcome not only that instrumental move across, but the move across of the individual concerned. I have always found the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) to be very forward thinking, and I think he will bring strength and hopefully some strategic vision to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Joseph Johnson
I will not comment on any absence of strategic vision prior to my right hon. Friend’s arrival, which I would not deem to be a fair comment, but he will take the Department to further great heights.
The hon. Gentleman asked about postgraduates and postgraduate study and why there is not more on that in the Bill. The OFS and UKRI will work closely together to ensure there are no gaps between their respective roles. In a way, that is no different to the current situation in which an institution receives funding from a research council but is still subject to HEFCE’s regulatory oversight of the sector. Individual students will have little if any exposure to either body, as interactions primarily take place at an institutional level.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s questions around teaching and research and the so-called split, we see the research excellence framework, administered by Research England within UKRI, and the teaching excellence framework, overseen by the office for students, as mutually reinforcing quality processes. We will ask institutions to consider how they promote research-led teaching in their TEF submissions. Lord Stern’s recent review of the REF recommended that academics be rewarded for the impact of excellent research on teaching. We will ensure that deadlines and timescales have the flexibility to enable institutions to plan and schedule the demands of the two systems.
Gordon Marsden
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because this is a complex issue for both him and me. Obviously, I will want to reflect on this when I see the Hansard report. The hon. Gentleman has been positive in thinking about having an observer on the two boards, but I wonder why even at this stage the Government appear to be relatively timid about the joint committee. A whole range of organisations have said similar things. MillionPlus stated in its evidence to the Committee that a committee and an annual report which referenced the areas and activities outlined in the amendment would help to achieve that symbiosis and provide greater public oversight and parliamentary scrutiny. I am a little surprised that at this stage the Minister is not considering a mechanism which might make some of these things easier and more automatic.
Joseph Johnson
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pressing this point, because it gives me a further opportunity to say that I am reflecting carefully on his amendments and thinking of ways in which we can address the points he has raised. I reiterate our willingness to think very carefully about what he has said. In the event that the OFS and UKRI were not working together, the Bill provides an important safeguard. It gives a power to the Secretary of State to require the two bodies to work together. Of course, that does not mean that they cannot work together without his explicitly asking them to do so. They can do so, and that is what clause 103 makes clear.
Amendment 333 proposes a specific list of activities on which both organisations would be required to work together. I believe that it is undesirable and unnecessary to be prescriptive in the Bill. I wholeheartedly agree that it will be important for the OFS and UKRI to work together on those areas, but we would not want to restrict the areas on which they should work together by providing a list of that sort. Although it details many important areas for joint working that have been raised by the community, the list is not comprehensive, and it is not likely to be so in future. An example would be ensuring efficient interaction between the teaching excellence and research excellence frameworks. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his positive and proactive response to the amendments which, as he knows, are probing amendments. I am encouraged by his recognition of the importance of getting such things right at the beginning. No list, in any Bill, whether drawn up by a university body or by Opposition Members, could possibly compete with the perfect list for ever and a day, for the next 20 years. However, if I may use a term that I often use, such lists are points of entry to provoke further discussion. I am encouraged by the Minister’s focus on the issues. There will be other opportunities in other places to discuss the matter further, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 304, page 92, line 16, after “chair” insert “and the House of Commons Select Committees”.
This amendment would ensure that the relevant House of Commons Select Committees are consulted before any appointments are made.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham took the initiative in drafting the amendment, but she cannot be here today because she is leading for the Front Bench in another Bill Committee. [Interruption.] We multitask.
The amendment goes with the flow of the Government’s intention in other areas. It is intended to ensure that before appointing the chief executive, chief finance officer and other members of UKRI the Secretary of State should consult not only its chair but the relevant House of Commons Select Committees. That would be consistent with the approach suggested by the Minister to OFS appointments.
In the Committee’s oral evidence sessions, the vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, Professor Borysiewicz, told us that
“the choice of members of that committee will be absolutely vital.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26, Q40.]
It is therefore important that the Secretary of State should consult with others to make sure that the membership is the best possible.
Such broad consultation would enhance the scrutiny of the choices that were made, and therefore improve the likelihood of the best person being appointed, because it would require the Secretary of State to make a clear, strong case for choosing particular candidates. We saw the importance of that during the evidence sessions, because a number of witnesses made forceful points about who should be on the board of UKRI. Alastair Sim, director of Universities Scotland, suggested that membership should be
“expertise-based but it should also be based on geographic balance so as to have people with experience from across the UK sitting on UKRI and on the councils within it.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 68, Q106.]
Professor Borysiewicz suggested that UKRI should be made up of
“individuals who are broadly respected across the devolved Administrations, the different elements of research across industry and the different players”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26, Q40.]
It is important to take into account those and other perspectives on appointments. We would all have confidence and agree across the House that consultation with Select Committees would make it more likely that a full and diverse range of opinions is taken into account before appointments are made.
In relation to appointments with the OFS, the Minister assured us that
“we fully intend to actively involve the Select Committee or Select Committees, as appropriate, in the appointment process”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2016; c. 75.]
If that is good for the OFS, given the critical importance of UKRI, I assume it would be good in that case too and I am confident the Minister will be able to reassure me of that.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for the amendment and the chance to discuss the involvement of Select Committees in UKRI appointments. The establishment of UKRI involves a number of particularly important public appointments. For all of these, subject to parliamentary approval in the passage of this Bill, we will run an open and competitive process in line with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This will apply to the permanent chair, CEO, CFO, other independent UKRI board members and the executive chairs of each council. I am happy to confirm that a pre-appointment hearing will be held in the House of Commons by the Select Committee on Science and Technology for the permanent chair of UKRI. That is in line with Cabinet Office guidance and, in keeping with this practice, the current interim chair, Sir John Kingman, has just appeared before the Committee.
Given the scale and importance of UKRI, I assure the Committee that I agree that it is appropriate to offer a pre-appointment hearing by the Science and Technology Committee with the chief executive officer. For other key positions, we intend to continue the current approach, which I believe works well.
Although it is not a statutory requirement for prospective research council chairs to appear before a Select Committee, it is common practice. I assure the Committee that we expect this practice to continue with any new executive chairs of the UKRI councils. This will ensure that the appropriate Select Committees are engaged in the appointment process for key leadership positions in UKRI. I hope that I have provided the hon. Gentleman with the assurances he is looking for and I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his assurances, which go some way towards meeting the points made in the amendment. I ask him to reflect on the opportunities to cast the net slightly wider to other Select Committees as appropriate in the way that it suggests. With the hope that he will reflect on that, and reassured by his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 186, page 92, line 18, after “experience” insert
“in the higher education sector in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
This amendment would ensure that the new research body, UKRI, would include appropriate membership from the devolved nations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 187, page 92, line 38, at end insert—
“(6) UKRI must, in appointing members of each Council, have regard to the desirability of the members (between them) having experience of research in the higher education sector in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would ensure that the membership and strategy of the new research body, the UKRI, takes proper account of the policies and priorities of the devolved nations.
Roger Mullin
I declare that I have an interest as I remain an honorary professor at the University of Stirling.
During the earlier stages of debate on the Bill, I remained remarkably quiet for someone with my background. I have been saving myself for today because it is a vital one if there is to be proper and respectful consideration for the university sectors in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. When I first read the Bill, I thought Scotland must already be independent because there was absolutely no recognition of the sector’s importance—so too, perhaps, in Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Bill was clearly not written in the spirit of the Nurse report, which stated:
“There is a need to solicit and respond to distinct research priorities and evidence requirements identified by the devolved administrations…it is essential that the Research Councils should play a strong role in…shaping research priorities and promoting the distinctive requirements of UK research, including in association with the devolved administrations.”
It is clear that when drafting the Bill the Government ignored to a great extent such an injunction. As it stands, UKRI is accountable only to the UK Government with principally English interests.
Gordon Marsden
I rise to make some observations on the amendments tabled by SNP Members. I have mentioned Hamlet without the prince once, so I will not do it again, but I entirely share the puzzlement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath that the Bill, and indeed the White Paper, have been drafted with scant recognition of the knock-on effect and implications of what may be extremely valuable new structures on the devolved Administrations. At the risk of being tediously repetitive, I will simply remark that this is yet another example of why the Bill should have been looked at again after 23 June.
I add in passing, since we are talking about traditions in universities, that Scottish universities have historical traditions and strengths that could match many, if not all, of those in England. I am surprised that the Minister, being cut from that cloth, should not think that the legacy of the Scottish enlightenment—Adam Smith and other entrepreneurial characters who have flitted through Conservative party pamphlets—worth consideration in this process.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has done the Committee a service. Looking around, I can see no Members from Wales, and obviously none from Northern Ireland. Yet in both Wales and Northern Ireland, universities and higher education institutions will be significantly affected by this process. They will also be affected if the process with the new bodies is not universally seen to be fair in sharing out its attentions at an important time for our university system. I speak as a Unionist; the Labour party believes in the Union. Not to consider including such provisions in the Bill is a great mistake. The Minister and I will probably agree that one should not put people on committees and bodies simply on a symbolic basis, on which so many matters are often discussed and organised. Surely we should consider those interests in the context of a new research body.
What I have to say is highly relevant to the future of those research bodies. As I have said previously, the Government’s White Paper has overlooked a vital factor. There is little sense of the knock-on effects on what I describe as the brand of UK plc. I am not the only one to make that observation; other commentators and academics have also done so.
HE providers across England and the devolved nations are internationally competitive because of a trusted UK brand. If we are to have a trusted UK brand, it is important that all the integral parts of the UK feel that they have a say at the table. If they do not feel that and there is dissension and disgruntlement, then at a time that the UK Government need to be doing everything they can in the Brexit negotiations to safeguard that UK brand, there will be a weak link.
There needs to be a proper UK-wide strategy to safeguard the position of our researchers. We will talk about that in later clauses. For now, the amendments tabled by the SNP, whatever one’s views on the future of Scotland, are doing a valuable service to the Government by waking them up to some of the implications and pitfalls of having a body, though not what they wished, that might appear too Anglocentric. On that basis, we support the amendments.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for his amendments and the opportunity to discuss the important role that UKRI will play in representing science and research across all of the United Kingdom.
I agree with him that Scottish institutions are a vital part of our vibrant research base. I am sure he will be aware that they gain more than a proportionate share of competitive funding from the research councils due to the excellence of their research under the current arrangements. The research councils and Innovate UK serve, and will continue to serve, the research and innovation communities across the UK.
Our reforms have been deliberately developed with the needs of all the devolved Administrations in mind, going all the way back to the Green Paper in November. The White Paper is clear that it is our policy intent to ensure that Research England, as part of UKRI, can work jointly with devolved funders. We have tabled a Government amendment to the Bill that supports this policy intent, which the hon. Gentleman will have seen. This will mirror HEFCE’s current effective working relationship with the devolved Administrations’ funding bodies, for example, with respect to the research excellence framework.
Research councils and Innovate UK as part of UKRI will continue to operate throughout the UK. We will work closely with the devolved nations as UKRI is established to ensure the UK’s research and innovation base remains one of the most productive in the world. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we have tabled a series of amendments in recent days to ensure UKRI can work effectively across all four nations. We have been working closely with the Scottish Government in developing these clauses.
To deliver our integrated and strategic ambitions for UKRI, the body must have a proper understanding of the systems operating in all parts of the UK. It will need a detailed insight into not just the research environment but innovation strengths and business needs across the UK. That should include regional differences across England as well as the devolved Administrations.
In relation to the UKRI board and the composition of the councils, we have two primary objectives: first, that we attract and appoint the best people wherever they come from; and, secondly, that the board and councils are of a size that allows them to function effectively. As Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz said when he appeared before this Committee a few weeks ago,
“the choice of members of that committee will be absolutely vital. These will have to be individuals who are broadly respected across the devolved Administrations.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Bill Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26, Q40.].
I agree with him completely on both counts. We must seek the highest quality individuals with a broad range of experience, not necessarily limited to the UK research community or UK higher education institutions. We need to learn from and bring in the best individuals nationally and internationally. They will be recognised for their experience and expertise spanning research and business-led innovation and their ability to represent the full range of interests of the UK’s research and innovation system.
We are very fortunate in the UK in the quality and extent of our research base. It is common for members of the research community to move around the UK or, indeed, abroad over the course of their careers. It is also common for researchers to collaborate extensively within the UK and abroad. As it is likely the members appointed on merit will have worked and will have extensive links across the UK research community, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister for his response, although I am slightly disappointed he has not gone further in saying that he would take the recommendation more seriously. We will have to return to this matter on Report.
I say to the Minister that the way in which he describes the role the devolved Administrations might be able to play in this regard sounds slightly complacent. If it were as precise and clear as he suggested, I wonder why he thinks Universities Scotland, the University of Wales, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and many others I have cited support the amendments and do not support the Bill as it stands. With the intent of bringing this matter back on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 247, in schedule 9, page 92, line 21, leave out “and new ideas” and insert
“, new ideas and advancements in humanities”.
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must, in appointing members of UKRI, have regard to the desirability of them having between them experience of the development and exploitation of advancements in humanities (including the arts), as well as the development and exploitation of science, technology and new ideas. A similar amendment is made to clause 85(1)(c) in amendment 256.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 315, in clause 85, page 52, line 8, after “out” insert “basic, applied and strategic”.
See amendment 316
Amendment 317, in clause 85, page 52, line 8, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 316, in clause 85, page 52, line 9, after “support” insert “basic, applied and strategic”.
This amendment and amendment 315 would ensure a commitment to supporting basic, strategic and applied research.
Amendment 318, in clause 85, page 52, line 10, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 319, in clause 85, page 52, line 12, after “technology” insert “humanities, social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 336, in clause 85, page 52, line 12, after “technology” insert
“arts, social sciences and humanities,”.
This amendment explicitly names the arts, social sciences and humanities as being part of the remit of the UKRI.
Government amendment 256.
Amendment 320, in clause 85, page 52, line 14, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 321, in clause 85, page 52, line 16, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 322, in clause 87, page 53, line 34, after “life” insert
“and social and cultural wellbeing”.
This amendment would ensure the Bill includes the full breadth of research and innovation and their benefits for humanity.
Joseph Johnson
Clause 85 sets out the functions of UKRI in broad terms. Among its key functions, UKRI will be responsible for facilitating, encouraging and supporting
“the development and exploitation of research and technology.”
It is intended that UKRI may also support the exploitation of advancements in the humanities, including the arts. However, this is not currently explicit in the provision made in clause 85(1)(c). Amendment 247 is a technical Government amendment that addresses that. For the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify that for drafting purposes, references to humanities in this Bill are defined as including the arts and references to sciences include social sciences. These definitions are given in clause 102.
In addition, amendment 256 seeks to amend paragraph 2 of schedule 9 which sets out the areas of experience that the Secretary of State should have regard to in appointing the board of UKRI. The consideration of the development and exploitation of advancements in humanities should form part of this consideration; the amendment enables this. As Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, from whom we have already heard today, said:
“There is a lot of sense in having a body that will scrutinise and ensure that we can take a wider purview of the UK R and D effort.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 22, Q30.]
Gordon Marsden
If I can find them in this bagatelle list which sends one diving across the paper, I rise to speak in support of our amendments, which are amendment 315, 317, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321 and 322.
Let me start by welcoming the technical amendments tabled by the Minister. As someone who has taught humanities, I was interested in his clarification that the arts were included in the humanities. I do not propose to have an etymological discussion about it, but I was also interested that social sciences— if I understand the Minister rightly—are included under the definition of sciences. I pause to think for a moment about the Minister’s first degree. Perhaps he might like to comment on whether he thought at the time that he was doing a science degree or a humanities degree. That is a little jeu d’esprit but nevertheless, it illustrates that this is a hazy area. Without being too pedantic, it is of merit to try to get some of the clarifications right so I welcome what the Minister has said.
Our amendments 317 and 318 would insert “social sciences” and “the arts” after “humanities”. I appreciate that there might be some overlap between what we have tabled and what the Government have tabled but obviously we did not necessarily consult them. The principle is straightforward: first, to ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the whole breadth of research; and, secondly and not unimportantly given that this is a major change—this comes back to what I have said previously—to give reassurance to those in those areas that their interests are being properly and carefully catered for.
Amendment 319 is part and parcel of the same process although this time, after “technology”, we are inserting the words “humanities”, “social sciences” and “arts”. The amendments we tabled to clause 85, which include the words “basic”, “applied” and “strategic”, are intended also to reflect concerns expressed by both the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Society of Edinburgh and probably other bodies too that basic science is essential for a good research system—often laying the ground for future applications — and that its funding should be a core function for UKRI. The royal charters of the research councils protected such fundamental research by requiring that basic strategic and applied research were all funded, hence their use in our amendments, but there is no commitment as such in the Bill, hence the suggestion that these amendments should be moved to include a commitment to supporting those issues.
Amendments 320 to 322 follow the same argument, inserting the words “social sciences” and “arts” after “the humanities”. Likewise, amendments to clause 87 insert a reference to social and cultural wellbeing after the word “life”, ensuring that the Bill includes a focus on the full breadth of research and innovation and their benefits for humanity. Without starting a philosophical discussion, I wish to be clear that we understand that much research and innovation does not always have an immediate practical application. Indeed that is not required, and that should not be the case. That is one of the elements of tension in this Bill between the effects of various changes, which we will be discussing later in terms of their structure and architecture.
At a time when people are bombarded—not least in the popular media—by sometimes highly contentious claims for research, it is important that we place in the Bill a recognition that research and innovation significantly benefits the man and woman in the street, either by the words suggested here or by other appropriate mechanisms. At a time of continued austerity and continued arguments over funding, which no doubt will tighten up during the Brexit process, it is important that that is made clear in the corridors of Government, not just to the general public.
Paul Blomfield
I will speak to amendment 336, recognising and welcoming the fact that Government amendment 256 covers a significant part of what we were trying to achieve with this amendment. I wanted to probe a little further on going beyond reference to the humanities, and looking at arts and social sciences. That is covered in the footnote, but I would like further clarification on the Government’s view of their inclusion more generally. The Minister will recognise the value of the creative industries and social sciences to the economy and to our culture, and this amendment seeks to recognise arts and social sciences within the legislation.
A number of organisations submitting evidence to us, including MillionPlus and Goldsmiths College—part of the University of London—have raised concerns about the Bill’s lack of provision for the arts, emphasising that the legislation must work for all subjects. In their written evidence, Goldsmiths College made the point that,
“we also believe excluding the words ‘arts’ from the description of the UKRI remit could jeopardise future funding for arts research. We believe this also to be the case for the social sciences, which could be overlooked in favour of more traditional science subjects. As well as signalling a commitment to these important disciplines, this would also fully reflect the objectives of the research council’s reporting into the UKRI.”
The point on which I am seeking reassurance is that the Government do regard the arts and social sciences as being of important academic worth.
Joseph Johnson
I welcome the amendments supported by the hon. Members for Blackpool South and for Ashton-under-Lyne, who are sitting in the absence of the hon. Member for City of Durham, which seek the same ends as the Government’s amendments. As hon. Members have said, it is absolutely right that UKRI should be able to take full advantage of the advancements that the UK research sector makes in the humanities, including the arts. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, I repeat that clause 102 makes it clear that “‘humanities’ includes the arts” and “‘science’ includes social science.”
I turn to the other tabled amendments to clause 85, which seek to spell out explicitly that the research UKRI may carry out should include “basic, applied and strategic” research. I welcome the opportunity to assure hon. Members that it is absolutely the Government’s intention that UKRI will support all forms of research, including “basic, applied and strategic” research, as hon. Members have put it. However, it is not necessary to be prescriptive in that way. The reference to research in clause 85(1) is drafted to be broad enough to include those types of research, and it is right that research experts, not politicians, decide what specific projects are supported.
I welcome the intention behind amendment 322 to clause 87(4). It seeks to require the councils to have regard to improving “social and cultural wellbeing”, in addition to the currently drafted “improving quality of life”, when exercising their functions. While I agree that the potential human benefits of research are wide-ranging, I am certain the current duty on councils to consider the desirability of improving quality of life is sufficient to cover those. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Amendment 247 agreed to.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 248, in schedule 9, page 92, line 37, leave out “A Council may include” and insert
“A majority of the ordinary Council members of a Council must be”.
This amendment replaces the provision which made it clear that a Council of UKRI could include persons who were neither a member of UKRI nor one of its employees and provides instead that a majority of the ordinary members of a Council must fall into that category.
The Nurse review highlighted the importance of maintaining the distinct identities and integrity of councils within UKRI. Sir Paul Nurse recommended that the councils should comprise an independent membership drawn from their respective research communities. Professor Sir John Bell recognised the sense of that, saying:
“This would appear to be a sensible implementation of the Nurse Review, and will provide opportunities for better collaborations between scientific disciplines in the context of the new Board. It will hopefully provide the leaders of research councils to be able to devote more time to strategy and less time to administrative functions.”
In addition, the Government said in our White Paper:
“In addition to the Executive Chair, each Council will be made up of…experienced independent members drawn from the relevant community.”
The amendment means that membership of each council must comprise a majority of ordinary members who are neither members nor employees of UKRI. It replaces the current provision in paragraph 3, which only allowed for the possibility of councils’ including members who fell into that category. The amendment will ensure that the integrity and autonomy of the individual councils will be maintained through their having an independent membership.
Amendment 248 agreed to.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 249, in schedule 9, page 93, line 34, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “UKRI”.
This amendment and amendments 251 and 252 provide that it is UKRI rather than the Secretary of State who pays members of UKRI and Council members their remuneration, allowances, expenses, pension and compensation. The amounts paid are, however, still to be determined by the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 250 to 255 and 312.
Joseph Johnson
This group of amendments relates to provisions in paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 9, which provide for powers for UKRI to make payments to UKRI members and its employees. Turning to amendments 249 to 252, paragraph 7 of schedule 9 is intended to place a duty on UKRI to pay salaries, pensions and allowances, compensation and expenses to the UKRI members as determined by the Secretary of State. The amendments make it clear that it is UKRI, rather than the Secretary of State, that pays members and council members of UKRI.
Amendments 253, 254 and 255 provide further powers for UKRI to pay expenses and allowances to existing and former members of UKRI staff and to provide pensions to these people.
Amendment 249 agreed to.
Amendments made: 250, in schedule 9, page 93, line 35, leave out “, allowances and expenses”.
This amendment removes an unnecessary reference in paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 9 to allowances and expenses for members of UKRI or Council members as they are covered in paragraph 7(2).
Amendment 251, in schedule 9, page 93, line 37 leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “UKRI”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 249.
Amendment 252, in schedule 9, page 93, line 43 leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “UKRI”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 249.
Amendment 253, in schedule 9, page 94, line 8, leave out “, allowances and expenses”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 254.
Amendment 254, in schedule 9, page 94, line 9, at end insert—
‘( ) UKRI must pay, or make provision for paying, to or in respect of a person who is an employee of UKRI, such sums as UKRI may determine with the approval of the Secretary of State in respect of allowances or expenses.”
This amendment makes the duty to pay allowances and expenses to UKRI employees consistent with the power to pay such allowances or expenses to former employees inserted by amendment 255.
Amendment 255, in schedule 9, page 94, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) UKRI may pay, or make provision for paying—
(a) to or in respect of a person who is or has been an employee of UKRI, such sums as UKRI may determine with the approval of the Secretary of State in respect of pensions or gratuities, and
(b) to or in respect of a person who has been an employee of UKRI, such sums as UKRI may determine with the approval of the Secretary of State in respect of allowances or expenses.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment makes clear that UKRI has power, subject to approval by the Secretary of State, to make pension provision for its employees and former employees other than under the Superannuation Act 1972 (as provided for in paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 9), to pay them gratuities and to pay former employees allowances or expenses.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 331, in schedule 9, page 95, line 26, leave out “any” and insert “some”.
This amendment seeks to clarify which functions UKRI intends to delegate to its Councils.
This amendment relates to paragraph 12 of the schedule, “The delegation of functions by UKRI”. This probing amendment raised a metaphorical eyebrow when we— and, I think, others—were looking through the Bill. Paragraph 12(1) of the schedule states:
“UKRI may delegate any of its functions to—
(a) a member of UKRI,
(b) an employee authorised for that purpose,
(c) a Council or a Council sub-committee, or
(d) a general committee.”
I am fairly confident that this is not designed to confer—to borrow a phrase from another context—Henry VIII-type powers—on UKRI to delegate. And I am fairly confident that when the Minister responds he will probably say that it replicates—I do not want to be so unkind as to use the word “boilerplate”—things that normally appear in Bills at this point in the proceedings. However, I think it is worth probing because in this instance it is not simply that the Government are setting up a new body in UKRI, but that the relationship between that body and its research councils, for example, is one that has inevitably provoked a lot of comment and some concern as to how that process will be taken forward.
This probing amendment seeks to clarify the division of responsibilities between UKRI and its councils and, at least, to elicit from the Minister some sense—I appreciate this is an evolving conversation—of whether that particular subparagraph of the schedule is intended to be a passe-partout, if I may put it that way, for this process.
I also say that because we had the interim chairman, Sir John Kingdom, before us in our somewhat attenuated evidence session. He has also very recently appeared before the Science and Technology Committee. I confess that I have only scanned the minutes of that meeting; I presume the Minister has read them from cover to cover. It seemed to me that in the best traditions of the civil service, from which he emanates, Sir John had skipped rather lightly on some of those questions to the Committee thus far; but that is for members of the Science and Technology Committee to judge.
It is important that we try to get some greater clarification before the Bill goes to the other place, not least because the Government will undoubtedly be peppered with questions and observations by Members of the House of Lords. I am actually trying to give the Minister a little assistance.
To be fair, the factsheet published by the Government, “Higher Education and Research Bill: UKRI Vision, Principles & Governance”, makes the point that there is much detail still to come. It states:
“The government is working with Sir John, our existing Partner Organisations and key stakeholders to explore detailed organisation design options…This will inform the final design which will be refined and agreed in partnership with the UKRI Chief Executive and Board once appointed.”
I appreciate that that will not necessarily happen anytime soon. The factsheet then says:
“Further detail will be set out in guidance including the framework document between BEIS and UKRI, which will be published once agreed.”
I have already referred to, and the Minister has commented on, the evolving implications of the machinery-of-Government division of research in that fashion. Therefore, as well as moving the amendment, which, as I have said, is a probing amendment designed to reflect the concerns, may I ask the Minister—I will do so in a constructive way—how he sees that framework document developing and at what stage he thinks it might be available to be considered? Does he think that it will be available before the Bill leaves this House, or when it goes to the other place?
Joseph Johnson
I thank hon. Members for the opportunity to explain in more detail what functions UKRI intends to delegate to the councils within it. As we have set out in the White Paper and the factsheet that we published on 12 October, our intention is that UKRI will delegate decisions on scientific, research and innovation matters to the nine councils. That will include, but is not limited to, the leadership of their area of expertise, including prioritisation of budgets and the development of delivery plans; ensuring the future of skilled researchers and other specialists essential to the sustainability of the UK’s research and innovation capacity; engaging with their community to develop ideas, raise awareness and disseminate strategic outputs; and appointing and setting terms and conditions of academic, specialist and research staff in the relevant council and any associated institutes.
As Sir Alan Langlands, vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, told the Bill Committee, in his view the new overarching research funding body, UKRI,
“has the potential to retain the best of the current individual research councils, while bringing greater strategic oversight and direction.”
Of course, some functions will be retained at the centre of UKRI. Those include a lean but highly effective strategic brain, which will facilitate development of the overall direction, ensuring that we invest every pound wisely; the management of funds with cross-disciplinary impact; and responsibility for administrative and back-office functions across the organisation, such as procurement, human resources and grant administration. The Bill does not seek to set out the detail of all that, as that would be—
Gordon Marsden
I do not want to interrupt the Minister’s flow unduly. I am still slightly struggling to digest, at this time of the morning, the concept of a “lean” brain, as opposed to possibly a fatty one or another type of one. The serious point that I want to make is this. How lean is this brain—to continue the analogy—likely to be? I ask that because throughout the Bill, not the elephant in the room but certainly the discussion in the antechamber is about what resources Government can bring to the administration of this area. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister, even if not today, gave some indication of that. Are we talking about dozens of people, hundreds of people or what?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and draw his attention back to the impact assessment that we made at the start of the Bill Committee process, which gives a feel for the resources to be allocated to UKRI and the savings likely to be generated from the back-office efficiencies that will be enabled through its creation. It will be no bigger than is necessary to undertake its core functions, which, as I have described, are to provide a strategic vision for the sector, to ensure it can operate a cross-disciplinary fund in a way that the current research councils cannot and so on. The Bill does not seek to set out the details of all this, because we will put out a framework document in due course. The hon. Gentleman asked when that will be published. I assure him that it will be published before the formal launch of UKRI.
Gordon Marsden
Again, I am not trying to tie the Minister down unduly, but can he give any indication of whether the document will be available when discussion of this matter goes to the House of Lords?
Joseph Johnson
We have provided, as I said a few minutes ago, quite a detailed factsheet that outlines our policy thinking with respect to the creation of UKRI and the general principles that will guide its approach to its functions. That goes into some detail about the broad approach that UKRI will take—for example, its recognition of the fundamental importance of Haldane with respect to how it will operate funding for science and its fundamental support for the dual support system and balanced funding.
The factsheet also goes into considerable detail about the governance arrangements that will apply to the work of the chair, executive chair and councils within UKRI, as well as the way the board and senior management team will relate to each other and the leadership and autonomy of the nine councils. I believe that hon. Members in the other place have a considerable body of material to consider as they deliberate on our proposals to create UKRI.
This approach allows UKRI or another council to carry out certain functions normally exercised by a particular council. That will enable existing collaborative working across councils to continue and for UKRI to deliver one of its key aims: improving the UK’s support for inter and multidisciplinary research. Details of which UKRI functions will be delegated to the councils will be captured in guidance included in the framework document between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and UKRI. That will be published in due course, once agreed with UKRI’s future leadership.
I agree with hon. Members that it is important to have clarity on the functions of UKRI that will be delegated to the councils. However, it is not necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister’s observations and the detailed examples he has given are a helpful move along this road. There will be further discussion in other forums, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 332, in schedule 9, page 97, line 1, leave out
“except with the consent of the Secretary of State”.
This amendment seeks to understand how UKRI will work with the private sector.
This is, again, a probing amendment. We are genuinely trying, along with people in the scientific community and associated areas, to understand the extent to which UKRI will work with the private sector. The Minister is keen on the private sector. We are keen on the private sector and believe it has a very important role to play. The way in which research councils can currently enter into contracts to conduct spin-out activity and form companies—MRC Technology is one example that has been cited—is extremely valuable to research and innovation.
Joseph Johnson
I welcome the opportunity to set out how we expect UKRI to work with the private sector. Paragraph 16 of schedule 9 provides flexibility in how UKRI performs its functions, balanced by controls that safeguard public funding and guard against large, high-risk commitments being made against future public spending. The research councils currently possess significant flexibilities, and it is our intention that UKRI should retain those freedoms. We have, however, balanced that with the need to safeguard public funding.
To ensure appropriate use of public money, a number of activities have been made conditional on approval from the Secretary of State. Those include entering into joint ventures and borrowing money—namely, areas that could build up commitments and risks against future public spending. This mirrors current practice, where research councils are already required to seek approvals for such activities. That is in line with the principles of managing public money, by which all public bodies need to abide.
The amendment would inadvertently make it impossible for UKRI to do any of those things. We are saying that it can do these activities, subject to approval by the Secretary of State, in the same way as before. In practice, the details of those approvals will be set out in guidance from the Department to UKRI. That may, for example, include a de minimis level for an activity below which the Secretary of State grants approval without further process. That is in line with current arrangements for the research councils.
The amendment would unduly restrict the scope of UKRI and limit its flexibilities, putting at risk its capacity to fulfil the ambitious remit we have set for it and make best use of its resources. Specific details of how UKRI will work with the private sector will be developed by UKRI and the councils themselves, in consultation with the Government. However, we expect UKRI to build on the relationships that the legacy bodies currently enjoy with the private sector, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for that additional information and helpful explanation. As I said at the start, the amendment was a probing one, simply designed to facilitate further discussion. We have had that discussion and the Minister has given us more useful information, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84
The Councils of UKRI
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 314, in clause 84, page 51, line 39, after “Secretary of State” insert “following consultation”.
This amendment would ensure there will be a process of consultation before any changes are made to the Councils of UKRI.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 323, in clause 87, page 53, line 36, after “State” insert “following consultation”.
This amendment would ensure there was a process of consultation before any changes are made to the Councils of UKRI.
Gordon Marsden
We now move on to some of the meat of an area which has developed quite a head of steam: the relationship between UKRI and the councils. We have previously talked today about some of the ways in which UKRI might devolve its powers, and the Minister has been helpful regarding the councils, but the devil is always in the detail of parliamentary scrutiny.
There is considerable disquiet about some of the blanket powers that the new body UKRI may have and, indeed, that the Secretary of State may give him or herself. This is not a comment on any particular Secretary of State, or any particular universities Minister. If we are to make good legislation, we need to work to the potential scenarios that are most difficult rather than to the simplest ones. If everything went simply in government we probably would not need to think about this, but of course things do not always go simply.
I come back to the reputational issue, which I touched upon earlier when commenting on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. We are at a critical period in our higher education history because of the big question marks over Brexit, and the lesser—although still significant—question marks over the machinery of Government changes. We should be doing everything we can to reassure the academic community and indeed the broader business community. We should not propose changes, potential changes or potential shutdowns that will cause problems. It is all very well for Ministers to say, “Well, this would never happen,” or, “It would be dealt with in guidance,” or whatever, but I am sure that we can all think of examples over the years where changes in legislation have set off great concern and scepticism, and in some cases had very bad financial and economic consequences involving overseas investors and overseas academic institutions.
We are debating this Bill at a time when our researchers, our research institutions and research bodies in our universities are being put under severe pressure and are concerned about their future relationship with organisations within the EU. It is highly relevant to changes that might be made to the councils of UKRI that changes in the EU or changes in our relationship with our EU partners do not necessarily have an adverse effect only on relationships with the EU, of course. They have, or can have, an adverse effect on relationships with other international institutions. At a Royal Society fringe meeting at our party conference last month at which I was present, comments were made by Professor Hemingway to the effect that when we think about these sorts of things, we also need to think about the implications for research in francophone Africa or lusophone Latin America, for instance, in terms of what we need to do to maintain our relationships there.
All these things are connected and related. That is why apparently arcane issues around the Secretary of State being allowed to change the name or responsibility of the council by issuing a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure are important. Behind that dry statement lie some of the issues that I have described. As far as I can see, the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to undertake any public consultation before changing the name or responsibilities of a council. We have already had some discussion about the merits or otherwise of automatically deleting references to the Privy Council from the structures and architecture of the Bill, and the OFS in particular. The Government declined to think creatively about ways in which the Privy Council might be a backstop.
The Royal Society is particularly concerned about this, as are most of the major research-intensive university groups. It is worth the Committee reflecting on the Royal Society’s position statement.
“The landscape of Research Councils has changed over time. The Bill giving the Secretary of State the authority to change their number, name, and fields of activity through a statutory instrument is a pragmatic reflection of this. While this change is reasonable, both Parliament and the research community should be able to inform and scrutinise properly any major proposed changes to Research Councils’ form and function. The Society believes the Bill should include a duty for the Secretary of State to consult with the research community on any proposal for major Research Council reform.”
It says it should include a duty, not a possibility. I emphasise those words because I do not want the Minister to come back with the boilerplate response that if the Secretary of State had to consult on all these matters, he or she would not get anything done. We are not suggesting that and nor is the Royal Society. It is saying there should be a duty to consult on a proposal for any major research council reform.
The issue has also been taken up by MillionPlus and the Russell Group. The Russell Group specifically sought clarification that the affirmative procedure must be used to change the councils. That is not a point we have included in any amendments but it is certainly a concern that the Minister should strongly focus on.
We have tabled these amendments to emphasise the vital role of consultation, not simply because it is the right thing to do, but because if it is not done there will be negative effects on our economy, the wider world’s perception of us, the status of our research councils and the flourishing of UKRI, which we all want to develop strongly in its formative years.
Joseph Johnson
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reassure the Committee and to explain in more detail how the powers would be exercised. They would allow the Government to react to the evolving needs of the research landscape and to keep the UK at the forefront of global research and innovation, while ensuring that the science and humanities councils cannot be altered without legislative scrutiny and the agreement of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 23 June referendum. That is an event and process that has encouraged the science and research community to understand that UKRI can add value to the community in bringing coherence and strength to the voice of science and research in this country in the months and years ahead. I would like to highlight the evidence that Dame Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office, gave to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in September. She said:
“So the creation of UKRI is a real opportunity at this moment when we are thinking about where we are going on Brexit.”
Her views reflect an emerging, indeed strengthening, consensus across the learned societies and science community in general that UKRI is something that they want to get behind.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for introducing that reflection. I agree with him. We are not saying that UKRI is likely to be an impediment to that process. For what it is worth, I entirely agree with the points the Minister has made; my concern—shared by the Royal Society and others—is that the Bill will need both to stand the test of time and to work well in its first years because of the post-Brexit complications and because there is a need for UKRI to be established as a strong, independent and credible force. With due respect, I do not see that the point that the Minister has made deflects or undercuts the points made by others, including the Royal Society.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to elaborate on how I believe we are putting in place provisions to deal with his concerns. I welcome his support for UKRI and his recognition of the contribution it can make once it is up and running.
The powers reflect similar existing powers that have been used several times in the past to merge or create new discipline councils as priorities change and evolve, as happened with the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Council in 2005. I assure hon. Members that future changes of that sort would not be undertaken lightly. The Government would seek the views of the research community through proper consultation before putting forward any proposals. I am sure that hon. Members would not hesitate to challenge any change of that kind that did not have prior consultation, but it is not necessary to place a formal duty on the Secretary of State to do that. Under clause 107, a statutory instrument must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament via the affirmative procedure. That follows the current process to change the structure and remit of the research councils under the Science and Technology Act 1965.
In any future use of the powers I am sure that hon. Members would not hesitate to challenge changes on which there had not been proper consultation with the sector. I agree with hon. Members that consultation would be essential before the exercise of the powers in question, but it is not necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his response and for the opportunity to have a broader discussion of the circumstances in which UKRI would develop. I think I made it clear that on looking at the drafting of the provision we thought there was already a requirement for an affirmative resolution, but I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that, with reference to clause 107. At the end of the day, the list of people whom the Minister must satisfy includes not just the Opposition but the whole academic and scientific community. I am glad that he recognises that, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
UK research and innovation functions
Amendment made: 256, in clause 85, page 52, line 12, leave out “and new ideas” and insert
“, new ideas and advancements in humanities”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides that UKRI may facilitate, encourage and support the development and exploitation of advancements in humanities (including the arts), as well as the development and exploitation of science, technology and new ideas.
Paul Blomfield
I beg to move amendment 289, in clause 85, page 52, line 18, at end insert—
“(h) provide postgraduate training and skills development, working together with the OfS.”
This amendment would ensure UKRI reflects the current activities of the Research Councils as set out in their Royal Charters in respect of the learning experience of postgraduate research students, and would require joint working on this with the OfS.
I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South in his opening comments and I am pleased to be able to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify an area that our discussions have not so far touched on much, but which I think we will all agree is of some importance. The proposal for the office for students is at the heart of the Bill, and it deals primarily with the learning experience of undergraduates. It goes on to talk about the learning experience for postgraduate taught students, but fails to address a third, important category: postgraduate research students. Clearly they have a very different learning experience; nevertheless it is crucial for them because they are not only learners but teachers.
I am sure the Minister will agree that there is a number of issues relating to postgraduate research students, and although there is good practice across the sector, there are also areas where such students are occasionally let down. A crucial relationship for them is with their supervisor. Although there is much excellent supervision, there are also areas, such as feedback, where supervisors can get things wrong. Feedback and assessment are crucial to every student’s learning experience, but get them wrong and, given the particular intimacy of the relationship between a supervisor and a postgraduate research student, that can be quite destructive.
I recently saw comments that an early academic had written in The Guardian based on their own experience, making the point that feedback
“can take the form of constructive feedback for improvement, or demoralising sarcasm. I have experienced the full range, and it has had a direct impact on my research.”
Unfortunately there are examples of supervision being interrupted by:
“Unannounced departures for conferences, holidays and research projects.”
Those of us with experience of the sector will know about problems with the sudden retirement of supervisors. That could be halfway through a programme of work for a postgraduate research student, but I have known cases where people accepted a place based on a particular supervisor’s expertise, but found on arriving at university that that person was no longer in place. There is a whole range of issues there.
There is also the relationship between research and teaching. Two or three years ago the National Union of Students published a very useful report highlighting the challenges for postgraduate research students in taking on teaching responsibilities, the difficulty that there often is in getting the balance right between the two, and the pressure that is sometimes put on them to undertake teaching work, which can be to the detriment of their research and own learning experience.
The third area, which will be close to the Minister’s heart—I know the other two will be as well—is the issue of access and widening participation, because we need to be clear that those opportunities exist at every level of our higher education system. The initial focus was on undergraduate access and the Government have taken some welcome steps to address issues relating to postgraduate taught programmes, but we also need to have a focus on postgraduate research opportunities.
The amendment gives UKRI a clear responsibility for postgraduate training and skills development—it is phrased in a way entirely consistent with the royal charters of the current research councils—in conjunction with the office for students. As the Minister will remember, I raised this point with some of the expert witnesses at our oral evidence session. Professor Philip Nelson, the chair of Research Councils UK, agreed that this was an “important issue”. He went on to say that
“we in the research councils have three main ways of supporting PhD students across the sector. We do interact with HEFCE on that currently. I think it will be very important—the point has already been made in evidence to this Committee—that the OFS and the UKRI connection is carefully made.”
Professor Ottoline Leyser from the University of Cambridge agreed that that was an important point and went on to say that
“one of the opportunities generated by UKRI would be the possibility to have more integrated research into teaching and research training…we could develop better understanding of the most effective ways to do research training and teaching. That is one opportunity that is more difficult within a single research council.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2016; c. 87, Q137.]
There are issues with how to address the learning experience of postgraduate research students. We are supported in the sector; there are problems that we are all aware of. Can the Minister reassure me on how he sees the roles of the two bodies? Will the OFS’s role in relation to postgraduate students include the regulation and assurance of quality, information needs for PGR students and their access to and participation in student protections? How does he see UKRI exercising its responsibility for the learning experience of PGR students, in conjunction with the OFS?
Joseph Johnson
I welcome the opportunity to set out the importance of postgraduate training and skills development to the future of our economy, and in particular to the strength of our research and innovation sectors. That is reflected in the provisions of the Bill that ensure that UKRI is able to support postgraduate training and work with the OFS on postgraduate and wider skills issues. The OFS and UKRI have been designed to work closely together, but let me offer some thoughts on the division of responsibilities between them and on how they might work together.
The OFS will be the regulator for all students, including postgraduate students, and will monitor the management and governance of HE providers, as well as their overall financial sustainability. The research councils within UKRI will continue to provide research grants for projects. Research England will deliver HEFCE’s current research funding powers, such as the quality-related research funding block grant. The Bill proposes safeguards to protect joint working and
“cooperation and information sharing between OfS and UKRI”,
which reflects the integration of teaching and research that we discussed earlier.
Research England, within UKRI, will lead on quality-related funding, the allocation for which currently includes an element that recognises research degree supervision. UKRI will fund postgraduate research, as research councils do now. HEFCE currently provides some funding from the teaching grant to support masters-level PGT; all teaching grant responsibilities and associated responsibilities will transfer to the office for students.
UKRI and the OFS will work together on monitoring and evidence gathering on the pipeline of talent from undergraduate study to postgraduate study, early career research and beyond. That underscores our intention for the OFS and UKRI to work closely together to ensure that there are no gaps between their respective roles. We want there to be no difference from the current situation in which an institution may receive funding from a research council but is still subject to HEFCE’s oversight of the sector. In practice, individual students will have little, if any, exposure to either body, since their interactions normally take place at an institutional level.
The Bill is a legal framework for these reforms, with the functions of UKRI broadly defined, as are the current functions of the existing bodies. They are drafted to be inclusive and permissive, and to ensure that the functions currently performed by the existing nine funding bodies can continue.
Paul Blomfield
A number of the Minister’s comments are reassuring. In describing the architecture and exercise of functions, he is talking largely in the context of continuity. The Bill has, at its heart, a drive to improve teaching excellence. Does he also see it as an opportunity to improve the learning experience of postgraduate research students? Should that be as much at the heart of what we are trying to do with the bodies we are creating as it is for the TEF?
Joseph Johnson
We see the research quality assurance process, through the REF, and the teaching excellence framework—the teaching quality assurance process that we are introducing—as being mutually reinforcing, as I have previously indicated. We want institutions to consider how they promote research-led teaching in their submissions, and Lord Stern’s review of the REF recommended that academics be rewarded for the impact on teaching of the excellence of their research. We will ensure that the two processes are co-ordinated and that timescales and deadlines have flexibility so that institutions can plan for the demands of the two systems.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I listened to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, and I contend that it is purely by having a flexible, open system that the things he asks for are actually possible. The problems within the system that he articulated are often due to the inadequacies of the departments involved. I know that because I have been closely affected by it. Allowing institutions to work with these overarching bodies but driving quality from the institutions themselves is what is wanted. Furthermore, an individual benefits from being asked to teach. It is not always detrimental for a researcher to expand their skills in that way.
Joseph Johnson
In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central on the teaching excellence framework and postgrad research, in the first instance, no, it will not deal with the postgrad experience; it focuses on undergrad and part-time. The Bill sets out clear responsibilities for UKRI and the OFS, with the OFS being the regulator for all students, including at postgraduate level.
There are a number of areas that will require close co-operation between UKRI and the OFS, including on postgraduates, and it is vital that they are empowered to work together. The Bill does that through clause 103, which enables and ensures joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information. An emphasis on working together will run through the leadership and management of both organisations, supported by a legal framework that will be sufficiently flexible to deal effectively with areas of shared interest.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for taking an intervention before he concludes, because I want to push a little further on the point I made earlier. The Bill seeks to improve the learning experience of taught students. Does he see that this is also an opportunity to improve the learning experience of postgraduate research students? Does he hope that the OFS and UKRI will work together to do that?
Joseph Johnson
Yes. We obviously recognise that our intention to drive up opportunities for informed choice and for students to receive a higher-quality experience in HE applies to all levels of study and all modes of provision. We certainly want to see postgraduate research included in that.
In the initial phase of the teaching excellence framework, as it develops and as it is trialled, we are focusing on undergraduate provision in the first instance, but we hope that in time it will be able to capture aspects of postgraduate provision, including postgraduate teaching. That is not something that we anticipate happening in the first three years of the new teaching excellence framework, but it could be something that we put into practice in the years that follow.
I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that I recognise the importance of postgraduate training and skills development in ensuring the continued strength of research and innovation in the UK, which is reflected in the Bill. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his reassurance. I say in passing to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds that I was not suggesting that teaching is to the detriment of research. Teaching is vital to the learning experience of many PGR students, but it is sometimes a question of getting the balance right, as it is when dealing with some of the other issues and challenges that postgraduate research students face.
On the basis of the reassurance the Minister has given that he sees the OFS and UKRI as having a role in ensuring we enhance the learning experience of PGR students, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We are coming to the end of our allotted time. It might be convenient to draw stumps before we start consideration of the next amendment. I apologise that I will not be here this afternoon for the last sitting. Appropriate words will be said at the end, but I thank Mr Marsden for his dogged perseverance in holding the Government to account and the Minister for defending the Government.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Evennett.)
Higher Education and Research Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome back for what I regret to inform Members will be the final sitting of the Committee. I remind Members that we finish at 5 pm precisely, which means we have to deal with any matters outstanding before then.
Clause 85
UK research and innovation functions
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 180, in clause 85, page 52, line 21, at end insert
“but must be exercised in such a way as to be for the benefit of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would place a general duty on UKRI to discharge its functions under section 85 for the benefit of the UK as a whole.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 181, in clause 88, page 54, line 4, at end insert—
“having regard to the economic policies of the UK Government, the Scottish Government the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive”
This amendment would ensure the specific duty of Innovate UK will be to have regard to the economic policies of the devolved administrations.
Amendment 326, in clause 89, page 54, line 33, after “appropriate” insert—
“including relevant bodies in the devolved administrations”
This amendment allows Research England to coordinate with its devolved counterparts.
Amendment 182, in clause 91, page 55, line 16, at end insert—
‘(4A) Before exercising his powers under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views in respect of any proposed research and innovation strategy.”
This amendment would place specific duty on the Secretary of State to consult the devolved administrations before exercising his powers in relation to a research strategy in section 91(4).
Amendment 184, in clause 94, page 56, line 24, at beginning insert “Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B),”
See explanatory statement for amendment 183.
Amendment 183, in clause 94, page 56, line 34, at end insert—
‘(4A) In giving direction to UKRI, the Secretary of State must act in the best interests of all constituent parts of the United Kingdom and, before giving such direction, must consult—
(a) the Scottish Government,
(b) the Welsh Government, and
(c) the Northern Ireland Executive
on research and innovation policies and their priorities.
(4B) Before giving any direction to UKRI under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek agreement to the terms of that direction from—
(a) the Scottish Government,
(b) the Welsh Government, and
(c) the Northern Ireland Administration.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State takes account of the views of devolved administrations, including different research and innovation policy, before giving direction to the UKRI.
Amendment 185, in clause 96, page 57, line 14, at end insert—
‘(3) In exercising functions under this Part, the Secretary of State must act in the best interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, having consulted—
(a) the Scottish Government,
(b) the Welsh Government, and
(c) the Northern Ireland Executive
before exercising these functions.”
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State that in exercising their functions in relation to UKRI they must consider the needs of the entire UK and consult the Ministers of the devolved jurisdictions
Roger Mullin
What a pleasure it is to see you, Mr Hanson —my favourite Chair—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—for a Tuesday afternoon.
The Minister is such a reasonable person that I am sure he is keen to accept amendments 180 to 185. They would place a duty on the Secretary of State that in giving direction to UK Research and Innovation regarding research priorities, it is incumbent upon UKRI and the Government to ensure that the needs of the entire United Kingdom are met and to consult with Ministers in all the devolved jurisdictions.
The Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Governments must have a formal role in providing input to the UK Government. Too often, the needs of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are forgotten. Allow me to give two examples related to the Bill—neither of which, I hasten to add, arose out of malice. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I noticed a few days before oral evidence sessions were due to start that every major institution in Scotland had been omitted from the list of those being called to give evidence. I know the Minister, and I know the Whip. They are reasonable people. I know they did not exclude us out of malice, but that omission demonstrated that we were an afterthought in a Bill Committee where they knew there would be representation from Scotland. For Scotland to be treated as a mere afterthought shows the need at times to put into legislation the right to be consulted. Being an afterthought is just not good enough.
Let me give another example. Later today, we will discuss an amendment relating to post-study work visas—a matter that has been raised many times by Scottish Members in this House and by the Scottish Government as it is of great concern to us and of great importance to our economy and our universities. What happened a few short weeks ago? Suddenly, the UK Government announced a pilot that involves no university in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, nor any consultation with the Governments in the devolved Administrations. That is another example of us not being treated with any respect whatsoever. The amendment calls for formal recognition in the Bill that we will not be consigned to the role of a mere afterthought at the whim of this or any other Government.
The Scottish research sector has different priorities from much of the rest of the UK, and there is a concern that those priorities will be missed within the new UK-wide research body. For example, Scottish higher education institutions have been pioneers in research collaboration since the establishment of the first research pools in 2004. One of the key principles behind research pools was that they should support research excellence “wherever it is found”, which is sometimes in relatively small research groups in less research-intensive institutions. We are concerned that initiatives to encourage collaboration between mere institutions can sometimes exclude such pockets of excellence through, for instance, threshold criteria dependent on scale. Scotland’s higher education sector, as the Minister will know, is worth more than £6 billion to our economy, and we must ensure that that continues. As it stands, the Bill has the potential to harm Scotland’s world-renowned research.
The Minister and his Government need to ensure that devolved Administrations have an equal say and that their voices are heard within UKRI to ensure that this Bill will be of no detriment to any part of the United Kingdom. It is also critical to be able to take account of the different economic and social priorities of devolved Administrations. Mention was made of Brexit this morning—by the Minister, if memory serves me correctly—and it immediately brought to mind not the example of Scotland but that of Northern Ireland, where there are going to be particular challenges, not least in how cross-border trade, cross-border research collaboration and the movement of people will be handled. That presents a context in Northern Ireland that is not present in any other part of the United Kingdom. Its voice needs to be heard as well. Not to have proper input on these and other matters would potentially be not only disrespectful, but damaging. In Scotland our drive for innovation and growth and our highly distinct social agenda need to be factored in. I have no confidence that that will be possible without ensuring that a statutory duty is placed in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to move the amendment.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I wish to elaborate on my Scottish colleague’s comments, first by saying that you are my favourite Chair of all time, Mr Hanson, and not just for Tuesday—at least until someone else comes along and makes me a better offer.
Amendment 326 would allow Research England to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. I am very much in tune with the sentiments just expressed by the hon. Gentleman: nobody likes to be treated as an afterthought, though sometimes people are pleased just to be noticed. In these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman has put forward a powerful case. It is not a question of omission by design, we hope, but it is certainly omission by amnesia, to put it kindly. Rightly, he did not just put the case for Scotland, which he is bound to do, but referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. Those of us who can just about remember back to that steamy day of Second Reading, before the summer recess, will remember that there were representations from Northern Ireland Members on the Bill, not just about issues such as the teaching excellence framework and the future for Northern Irish students, but on some of the border issues. Since then those issues have come further to the fore.
It is a question of looking back as well as looking forward. The reality is that Research England will be inheriting, and will be challenged to perform on, the existing system. At the moment, the UK’s dual support system underpins an excellent research base. As Committee members probably know, it consists of two complementary streams: one targets specific discipline areas; the other is a block grant to institutions. Currently the former is disbursed by the seven research councils and the latter through the Higher Education Funding Council for England and its devolved counterparts, the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
As we heard this morning from the Minister, the proposed reforms will bring the seven research councils and the England-only research functions of HEFCE in the form of Research England—if the Committee has not been lost by this point, it will be shortly—into UKRI. The Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland will remain sitting outside UKRI. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath rightly pointed out, it would be helpful to probe how UKRI will work with institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in providing strategic oversight of UK research.
I say gently to the Minister that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has made it fairly clear—I support his view, and if I was a Member from one of the devolved Administrations, I would feel the same—that on this occasion simply rehearsing the line that we can be assured that UKRI will take such things into account is not going to be adequate, either practically or symbolically. If the Minister is in any doubt, since we have mentioned Scotland and Northern Ireland, I am now going to mention Wales and quote the written evidence that the Committee received from Universities Wales about three or four days ago. I refer to the section about UKRI governance and operation. Very much in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Universities Wales says:
“In the past the legislation has relied heavily on the Secretary of State and the Research Councils to act in the interests of the UK as a whole. With the increased divergence as a result of devolution, however, we question whether this will continue to be effective in appropriately reflecting devolved policy and interests. We welcome the UK Government’s proposed amendment”—
that is referred to as new clause 3, which we will come to—
“to enable joint working between relevant authorities where this is more efficient or effective. We would like the legislative framework to be strengthened, however, so that it not only facilitates joint working but ensures”—
I think there is a difference—
“that interests of devolved nations are catered for appropriately. In particular we agree with Universities Scotland that the legislation as a minimum must ensure there is appropriate representation on UKRI’s Council and on the Councils’ boards. The legislation must also include appropriate duties for UKRI and the Secretary of State not only to consult with devolved administrations but also to have due regard to devolved policy.”
That is the nub of it, and that is what we have tried to embody in amendment 326, which would give Research England the facility to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. That is the basis on which we have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I will not join the auction of flattery, Mr Hanson; I feel that it is unnecessary, and I am sure you do not appreciate it. I am, however, glad to have the opportunity to assure Members, in particular those from Scotland, that I share their desire to ensure that the UK operates for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Scottish and other devolved institutions are a vital part of our vibrant research base and have not been overlooked carelessly or by any other kind of omission in our preparations for these reforms or for the Committee. I know that it feels like a lifetime ago that we were sitting in Portcullis House listening to oral evidence, but I point out to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath that representatives of UK-wide bodies were invited to give evidence to the Committee, including Research Councils UK, Innovate UK and Universities UK. Those bodies all represent the totality of the United Kingdom, including institutions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
I understand that all parties were invited to make submissions about who should give evidence before the Committee. We put forward a number of suggestions, as did the official Opposition. Relatively late in the day, Members from the Scottish nationalist party asked for additional people to be invited to give evidence, and we were delighted to accommodate Universities Scotland, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Funding Council to round out the evidence that we had already requested from those other representative bodies of the entirety of the United Kingdom. There was no omission. We were delighted to make time in the Committee’s proceedings to accommodate further Scottish voices, and we welcomed them, as we welcome them now.
Roger Mullin
I never suggested that there was any malice, but there was scope to have Scotland properly represented. The Scottish National party—I see there is still scope for education there, since the Minister does not know the name of the party that I represent—was not invited by the Government to give any suggestions about who should be invited, so I think it is fair to characterise it as an afterthought.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further clarification. I am always happy to be educated by him in lots of ways, but on this matter we will have to disagree. We gave opportunities to the Committee to submit names to give evidence before it. As I said, we had already invited significant representations from UK-wide bodies and were delighted to accommodate the further suggestions his party made. I think we have to move on.
Turning to amendments 180 and 181, the research councils and Innovate UK, within UKRI, will continue to fund excellence wherever it is found in the UK. UKRI has the ability to work with the devolved bodies and a statutory duty to use its resources in an efficient and effective way, meaning it will look for all opportunities to collaborate. It is also important than Innovate UK can operate independently to spot opportunities and to provide the right access to finance conditions for economic growth. To improve its understanding and response to economic policies in the devolved Administrations, Innovate UK will be appointing full-time regional managers in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast. That means that UKRI and its councils will have to consider the whole of the UK, ensuring that the current co-operation will continue.
Turning to amendment 326, on Research England consulting relevant bodies in the devolved Administrations on grant conditions, block funding of universities for research—so-called quality-related funding—is a devolved matter. It is therefore not appropriate to require Research England to consult its devolved equivalents, just as the devolved funding bodies are not required to consult HEFCE now. Our approach mirrors that taken in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Of course, that does not mean HEFCE has operated in isolation—in fact, HEFCE works closely with its devolved equivalents, such as the Scottish Funding Council, on areas like the research excellence framework. A Government amendment ensures that Research England can continue that joint working in the future.
Turning to amendments 182 to 185, on the Secretary of State consulting the devolved Administrations before taking key decisions that will have an impact on UKRI, the Government work closely with the devolved Administrations now and UKRI will continue to work with them. However, we would not seek to bind UKRI into a restrictive process of consultation. Legislation must remain sufficiently flexible for the Government and for UKRI to react quickly to emerging issues, as the research councils acted earlier this year to promptly commission research into the Zika virus.
The amendments also require the Secretary of State to act in the best interest of all parts of the UK. As a UK Government Minister, I assure the Committee that that is already the case. That was recognised by the former vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee, Sir Alan Langlands, in the evidence he gave last month:
“Even given the dynamics of devolution and the fact that essentially we are dealing with four different financial systems and four different policy frameworks, the one thing that has stuck together through all this has been the UK science and research community. The research councils, HEFCE and, indeed, BIS have played a hugely important part in that.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26-27, Q40.]
I agree with Sir Alan. The research community functions remarkably well across the UK political landscape, not least because the UK Government and the devolved Administrations work together to make it do so. Therefore, recognising that the Government share the hon. Gentleman’s concern in ensuring that UKRI effectively serves the whole of the UK, I ask that he withdraws amendment 180.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister genuinely for his responses. I will not put the amendment to a vote, but I make two observations. I do not think establishing mere regional managers in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast, if I recall his statement correctly, are in any way sufficient to guarantee the type of high-level involvement that is being sought. There are examples—I gave one related to the post-study work visa pilot—of where decisions have already been taken by the UK Government without proper consultation of the devolved Administrations. I therefore beg to differ with the Minister on those two points, but I also beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 310, in clause 85, page 52, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The functions conferred by paragraphs (a) – (e) of subsection (1) may be carried out in partnership with other funding bodies”.
This amendment allows other funding bodies to work with the UKRI.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 111, 272, 273, 114 and 115.
Government new clause 3—Joint working.
Government new clause 17—Advice to Northern Ireland departments.
Paul Blomfield
It goes without saying what an enormous pleasure it is contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. We are all aware of the significant amount of research done in the UK that is co-funded through partnerships with other organisations, and particularly those in the charitable sector. For example, the British Heart Foundation spends £9.1 million on projects with the local research council, and the Association of Medical Research Charities provides £1.4 billion of research funding overall.
As one of the primary roles of UKRI is to “facilitate, encourage and support research” within the sciences and many other fields, amendment 310 seeks to ensure that research funded by other funding bodies, and particularly charities, can continue unaffected by the creation of UKRI. At the moment, the Bill does not fully explain how collaborations and partnerships will occur when UKRI is established. It is unclear whether contracts will be formed directly with UKRI or whether that function will be delegated to research councils, in which case partnerships may become more complicated and time-consuming to establish.
It was surprising that in the Government’s document outlining the case for the existence of UKRI and their recently issued document on UKRI’s visions, principles and governance, there is no mention of charities, let alone any description of how charities are supposed to work with Government once UKRI is formed. I appreciate —I am sure the Minister does as well—that a whole range of charitable organisations are concerned about the lack of clarity and the potential impact on research. The Royal Society, the Association of Medical Research Charities and the British Heart Foundation raised significant worries in their written evidence to the Committee. When charities with such strong contributions to make to research say they are concerned in this way, we need to stop and listen.
Ensuring a simple and clear process for charities to jointly fund research with Government is, I am sure we all agree, important. The vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, Sir Alan Langlands, whom the Minister has regularly quoted, explained in his oral evidence to the Committee why this clarity is necessary:
“At the moment in HEFCE, there is funding related to charity support, support for research degrees, and businesses research and innovation. All those things need to be resolved. It needs to be very clear between UKRI and the Government who is doing what in those areas.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 28, Q42.]
Professor Borysiewicz of the University of Cambridge also raised concerns about how charitable bodies will continue to fund research, saying:
“one has to remember that of the research funders in the UK, UKRI merely looks after the Government component side of the funding. For instance, 30% of funding sits with the charitable sector. What is important with UKRI, which is fine as is currently laid out, is that the support and the safeguards proposed in relationship to Research England are also very good. It has to be a body that takes into account the whole of the United Kingdom in its purview. It also has to work closely with other funders and other organisations that have a say in this important area”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 37, Q25.]
That demonstrates the concerns within the charity sector, and I hope the Minister will respond to the issues raised through the amendment by giving some reassurance.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for raising these concerns on behalf of the hon. Member for City of Durham. The Government are keen, like the hon. Gentleman, that UKRI should be able to collaborate with any organisation if doing so would result in better outcomes. As I will make clear shortly, there are specific instances where it is necessary to put powers on the face of the Bill to allow joint working with the devolved Administrations and with the office for students. However, in all other instances I can reassure the Committee that UKRI will not need specific provision to be able to work jointly with other bodies.
Through clause 96, UKRI must look to be as efficient and effective as possible. In many instances, collaboration with other funding bodies will further its ability to achieve this aim. That will be supported by UKRI’s supplementary powers under paragraph 16 of schedule 9. The UK research base is internationally renowned for being highly collaborative and has a strong track record in successful partnerships with other funding bodies. I am therefore confident that not only are such opportunities possible, but that they will be actively sought as part of UKRI’s normal practice.
Government amendments 111, 114 and 115, new clause 3 and new clause 17 relate to joint working. Higher education and block funding of universities for research—so-called quality-related funding—are both devolved matters, but this has not meant that HEFCE has operated in isolation. In fact, HEFCE works closely with its devolved equivalents, such as the Scottish Funding Council, on areas such as the research excellence framework. The office for students and UKRI will take over HEFCE’s responsibilities for funding teaching and research and it is very important that such effective joint working can continue. That is why we, in consultation with the devolved Administrations, have prepared new clause 3, which enables the office for students, UKRI, the devolved funding bodies and Ministers, to work together where it enables them to exercise their functions more effectively or efficiently.
In addition to the new joint working clause, I have also tabled new clause 17, which gives the OFS and UKRI powers equivalent to the existing power for HEFCE to provide advice to the Northern Ireland Executive, as set out in section 69(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. This is an important power to preserve, as there is no funding council in Northern Ireland, where they have instead found it more effective to rely on advice and support from the English and Welsh funding councils, such as on quality reviews, on terms that all parties agree.
Amendments 272 and 273 are minor and consequential amendments that ensure that any references to UKRI predecessor bodies within the Government of Wales Act 2006 are corrected. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 310.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his assurances on the issue and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Exercise of functions by science and humanities Councils
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 87, page 53, line 11, leave out “Economic and other”.
This is a drafting amendment to simplify the way the field of activity of the Economic and Social Research Council is expressed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 258 to 260, 268 and 269.
Joseph Johnson
These amendments are all directed at updating the way in which the fields of activity of specific councils are reflected in clause 87(1). They ensure that the descriptions of the fields of activities for the research councils are as clear and accurate as we can make them. These are technical amendments that we have agreed with the research councils to ensure that clause 87 properly reflects their respective fields of activities.
Amendment 268 replaces the term “in relation to” with the term “into”, which is the more conventional terminology used in other provisions in part 3. The change in wording does not affect the meaning of the provisions. The policy intent—that UKRI may provide research services—remains unchanged. Amendment 269 replaces “social science” with “social sciences” in clause 102 to make it consistent with the wording in clause 87, and to better reflect the diversity of disciplines within the social sciences.
These two minor drafting amendments seek to ensure that the language used throughout the Bill is consistent.
Amendment 257 agreed to.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 324, in clause 88, page 54, line 8, after “relate” insert
“to maintain its focus on assisting businesses and”.
This amendment seeks clarification that Innovate UK is intended to maintain its business facing focus as a Council of UKRI.
The clause is relatively brief on the exercise of functions by Innovate UK. Brevity is not always a bad thing, but we have tabled the amendment because we seek strong clarification of whether Innovate UK is intended to maintain its business-facing focus as a council of UKRI. I remind the Committee that the White Paper stated that its
“business facing focus would be enshrined in future legislation, which would replicate the functions in Innovate UK’s current charter.”
I am not a betting man, but if I were I would put money on the likelihood that, when I sit down and the Minister rises, he will look at me more in sorrow than in anger and refer me to the note published this month, “Higher Education and Research Bill: Innovate UK”, with its sub-heading, “What do the reforms mean for Innovate UK?” I shall not deprive him of the pleasure of reading substantial chunks of it to us, but I will just quote it. I do not know whether the Minister wrote it himself.
The end of the first paragraph states:
“We are very clear that Innovate UK will retain its current business-facing focus. Innovate UK will not become just the commercialisation arm of the Research Councils.”
Those are fine words, but you will know, Mr Hanson, that, in the words of the old proverb, fine words butter no parsnips. If I were to continue that metaphor I should say that, if I were a cynical person, which I am not, the mere emphasis given in the note would remind me of another old saying, that “the louder they protested their honour, the faster we counted the spoons”. On this occasion we should like to examine some of the cutlery, if I may pursue the analogy.
I refer the Minister back to the evidence session with the chief executive of Innovate UK. I thought that what she said was revealing. Her evidence was measured and confident and she was overall in favour of what was going ahead, but she put down some substantial caveats. I will remind the Minister of what she said. I asked her whether there were things with Bill that concerned her about the the financial tools. She said:
“There are three areas in particular on which we need to be absolutely sure that the intent and what was in the White Paper is still there in the Bill. The first of those is the business experience of the board and the Innovate UK champion, which is very clear in the White Paper. As I understand it, that is possible and enabled through the Bill, but I think that the balance of business and research experience is very broad and could be tightened up a bit.”
She then said, about the financial tools:
“We are keen to be able to use things such as seed loans and equity, and other councils within UKRI have dipped a toe into that.”
She went on:
“We need to be absolutely clear, in how the Bill is finalised”—
whether this is the finalised version remains to be seen—
“that we ensure we have as much flexibility as the research councils have had and some of our enterprise partners have. We work very closely with Scottish Enterprise, which uses more financial tools than we currently have, and Enterprise Northern Ireland. We want to move at speed and to empower companies to grow in scale and be really competitive, but we must ensure we have the flexibility to do that and not slow down our clock speed. I think there is a bit of work to do looking at that in more detail.”
Then when talking about institutes and research, she again said:
The Bill gives us the great opportunity to look across the whole spectrum…At the moment, as I understand it, if Innovate UK wanted to create an institute and employ researchers to do the work that businesses need, we absolutely could. I am not sure, within the letter of the Bill, that we are still going to be able to do that. I think that probably needs to be looked at.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2016; c. 80-81, Q125.]
When I looked again at the transcript of that session and at what Ruth McKernan, the chief executive, said on that occasion, it reminded me of a little exchange between the Minister and I in the following session when we had the opportunity to put him in the box. In fact, he volunteered himself to the box for some cross-examination by the Committee. On that occasion, I pressed him rather strongly—he was not best pleased to be pressed and certainly gave a spirited response—on the subject of the reports of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. At the risk of inflaming the Minister further and perhaps getting him removed him from Lord Selborne’s Christmas card list, I will repeat a summary of the findings, but not the lot because I do not want the Minister to blow a gasket:
“We have serious concerns about the integration of Innovate UK into UK Research and Innovation. With the exception of the Government itself, none of our witnesses gave an unqualified welcome to the proposals. We do not believe that the Government has consulted effectively with Innovate UK’s stakeholders to achieve buy in for this proposal. The Government’s case for integration appears to be based on a flawed linear model of innovation where Innovate UK functions as the commercialisation arm of the Research Councils.”
The Minister has, of course, been keen to address and refute that.
There was a long letter from Lord Selborne and a reply from the Minister that was not as long but was substantial, and I think they probably agreed to disagree. The fact remains, however, that those concerns also remain. The Minister must do a slightly better and specifically more focused job if he is to reassure not just members of this Committee but the range of people he has prayed in aid during other sittings of this Committee—new providers, funds coming in, private equity and all the rest of it.
These other names will not easily go away and I want to quote three or four from the evidence session to which Lord Selborne referred. He quoted Dr Virginia Acha of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, who said:
“I would be concerned if Innovate UK were brought under the same decision-making approach that a research council would be brought under, because they are making very different decisions.”
Professor Luke Georghiou said:
“There is real concern about the huge disparity between the size of the budget between the existing research councils and Innovate UK, summed up by concern that Innovate UK’s influence would be dwarfed and its impact distorted. That was how members summed up the risks to us.”
Mr David Eyton, who spoke to the Lords Committee, said:
“Effectively”—
Innovate UK
“is the start-up in the context of”
the research councils.
“It is 10% of it; the other 90% is very stable. It is comparatively new and needs to really motor. Will it get the management attention and focus, which requires the quite different skills for governing innovation ecosystems from governing science? That is also the question for that body: the balance of skills on the governing body.”
Finally, but obviously not least, we have what Dr McKernan said to the House of Lords Committee on that occasion. She might have used slightly different terminology—not least because the Minister was there and in courtesy to him—but she said:
“There are also risks that I have not gone into.”
She was talking about the possibility of funding from other Departments being diminished. She continued:
“There are some other areas of mitigation where I still have concerns…We manage about £300 million of funds in partnership with other government departments, for example the Aerospace Technology Institute through BIS”—
with which I am familiar, because there is a BAE Systems site at Warton near my constituency in Blackpool. I am familiar with the work that BAE Systems has done previously with Innovate UK and the Aerospace Technology Institute. Dr McKernan went on to say that Innovate UK does a lot of work with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. She continued:
“It is really important to safeguard those relationships and not feel the need to create something else because we have created”—
these are her words, not mine—
“a fracture in putting Innovate UK within UKRI.”
The Minister may feel that that is slightly overstating it and overegging the pudding, but I hope that I have done enough to show him that that succession of concerns, considerations, worries and so on will not easily be assuaged simply with a paragraph saying that the Government will allow Innovate UK to retain its current business focus. I think that people out there in the groups that I have described want something a little more substantial.
The Royal Society’s position statement on this subject sums up the issue. It says:
“There has been considerable debate about whether or not Innovate UK should be part of UKRI. On balance, the Society believes the potential benefits of creating an organisation with an integrated overview of UK research and innovation infrastructure, assets and expertise outweigh the risks of a more fragmented structure, and that Innovate UK should be part of UKRI. It is essential that in creating UKRI, however, that Innovate UK’s unique business-facing focus and links to its customer base are not put at risk.”
That is where we stand today. The jury is still out on that and on the assertions with which the Minister hoped to placate Lord Selborne, and we would be interested to hear a little more chapter and verse to assuage our concerns.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to comment on Innovate UK. We need to ensure that research and innovation come together at the heart of our industrial strategy. I set that out in my letter to Lord Selborne, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, about Innovate UK’s future inside UKRI, and again in the factsheet that we published for the benefit of the Committee on 12 October.
To fully realise our potential, we need to respond to a changing world, anticipate future requirements and ensure that we have the structures in place to exploit for the benefit of the whole country the knowledge and expertise that we have. I believe that we can do that most effectively by bringing Innovate UK into UKRI. That view is now shared by bodies such as the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society, which have recognised, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that the benefits of integrating Innovate UK into UKRI outweigh the risks.
Those two bodies are not alone. In other parts of her testimony, Ruth McKernan herself said:
“The establishment of UK Research and Innovation, including the research councils and Innovate UK, recognises the vital role innovation plays and further strengthens the UK’s ability to turn scientific excellence into economic impact.”
Alternatively, I can again point hon. Members towards the evidence given by Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz of Cambridge University, who said:
“The addition of Innovate UK is welcome, because it means that industry and the translation to industry has skin in the game at the very basic level.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 22, Q30.]
I recognise that the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised additional concerns in his remarks and with his amendment, which I will come to now.
Gordon Marsden
I wanted to pick up the point that Dr McKernan made, which is highly relevant in the context of the debate we have just had about devolved areas. She made the point—her view was challenged by others, I think—that Scottish Enterprise and Enterprise Northern Ireland had “more financial tools” than Innovate UK had. Does the Minister share her concerns about that? If he does, what capacity is there in this new structure for Innovate UK to be able to match the flexibility she referred to?
Joseph Johnson
We want Innovate UK to have significant flexibility in the range of financial mechanisms and financial tools it has at its disposal. That is one of the reasons why we are developing the new non-grant innovation finance products at the moment, to complement the important and popular grant finance products that it has at its disposal. The Bill sets out the activities that UKRI as a whole can pursue, and activities where it needs advance permission from the Secretary of State, such as establishing a joint venture. All these restrictions and activities will apply equally to all councils in UKRI, not just to Innovate UK. The restrictions replicate the current situation that applies to Innovate UK and to the research councils. We are not looking at placing undue restrictions on the councils once UKRI is created, but the Secretary of State will need to be assured that certain activities are in line with HM Treasury rules and delegations, as I am sure he will understand, such as the “Managing public money” guidance issued by the Treasury. Once it comes into being, UKRI will be managing a budget of more than £6 billion, so we need to ensure that those kinds of control are in place.
The Bill already makes clear Innovate UK’s business-facing role, not only through directing its focus on increasing economic growth, as set out in clause 88, but through specifically ensuring that it has regard to benefiting persons carrying on business in the UK. Although I agree with the sentiment behind amendment 324, I believe that its aims are already addressed in the Bill and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to the Minister for running through those scenarios in some detail, and particularly for expanding on the potential financial instruments. It is fair to say that there is nothing more that he can do at this stage. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and of course the proof of the pudding will perhaps also be demonstrated by the nature of the board that is eventually set up. With that in mind, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Exercise of functions by Research England
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 325, in clause 89, page 54, line 13, at end insert—
‘(1) Research England may—
(a) provide non-hypothecated funding to eligible higher education providers for the purpose of supporting basic, strategic and applied research; and
(b) support knowledge exchange and skills provision.”
This amendment would allow Research England to fund eligible higher education providers to support basic, strategic and applied research and to support knowledge exchange and skills provision.
This, too, is a probing amendment. We have spoken slightly in brackets, in the context of its implications for the devolved Administrations, about Research England, but this is an important clause because it starts to spell out—obviously, in the Bill there is a limit to the amount that Ministers might wish or be able to spell out—some of the issues and concerns about how funding will be separated, assessed and actioned. We tabled the amendment in an attempt to tease out just what some of the things in clause 89 might mean.
The particular set of emphases in the amendment is one that the representations that I have had from members of the scientific community and various societies show they are keen on and anxious about. The Minister referred earlier to the various types of research assessment, and of course that will include taking on quality-related research assessment for the UK and funding for England. QR funding is generally highly valued because it can provide stable levels of funding over the period between research assessment exercises in a way that means the university can deploy it at its discretion. Of course, there is always a balance to be achieved in this respect. In the original debates about the research assessment exercises in the late 2000s, the issues of QR, how micromanaged it should be and how flexible it should be were hotly debated, and no doubt they will continue to be hotly debated in the future. However, I think that there is a general acceptance and general view that QR funding provides a valuable baseline of support for facilities and research operations.
Without wishing to sound like a Jeremiah, I might say that the mixture of factors that HE institutions in this country will have to face over the next three to four years—highly variable factors to do with the implications of Brexit and what does or does not come out of that —and the general financial climate in Government make it important that there should be an element of funding to provide a baseline of support for facilities and research operations. QR gives universities the opportunity to support emerging research areas and new appointees.
I remember debating these issues in Select Committee in respect of the REF, and this was always the discussion. Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The point was made that, certainly under the old research assessment exercise, it was difficult for new, cutting-edge disciplines that had genuine merit and genuine academic reference, and all the rest of it, to break into the structure. QR still plays a valuable role in that respect. Supporting emerging research areas and new appointees is important as well, because there was a time not that long ago—perhaps five, 10 or 15 years ago—when it was extremely difficult for young academics in their 30s or 40s to come through in new research areas and to develop institutes and things of that nature, particularly but not exclusively on the science side, in universities.
For all those reasons, most people out there in the HE environment believe, like I do, that QR is an important element of funding, and it would help to enshrine that purpose in law. We have suggested a mechanism. Again, this is a probing amendment. If the Minister is minded to consider it and does not like the terminology, we would be happy for him to take it away. It is important to give reassurance to the academic community about the role of QR, on which there is relatively little in the Bill.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to explain further the key role that Research England will play within UKRI. Research England’s function of providing funding for research within higher education institutions will form one part of the dual support system in England. It will take on HEFCE’s responsibility for issuing block grants to universities for the purposes of research, based on the research quality of those institutions.
The integration of HEFCE’s research and knowledge exchange function within UKRI is also critical to achieving greater strategic co-ordination across the research funding landscape. Professor Quintin McKellar, vice-chancellor of the University of Hertfordshire, said:
“I am very comfortable with the creation of UKRI. It seems that bringing together the major funders for what you might call blue-sky research with those that have responsibility for innovation and knowledge transfer is a good thing.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 24-25, Q36.]
UKRI will ensure a more joined-up approach in areas such as skills and UK-wide capital investment, where both HEFCE and the research councils have pioneered innovative funding approaches. For example, HEFCE’s UK research partnership investment fund has allocated more than £500 million to 34 projects running between 2014 and 2017, attracting £1.4 billion of investment from businesses and charities.
An amendment is not needed to assure the unhypothecated nature of the funding that will be provided by Research England, as clause 93(2) already provides such protections. In addition I would be cautious about placing any conditions on the funding beyond the conditions currently in place, such as the amendment suggests by referring to basic, strategic and applied research, which may inadvertently restrict what universities can do with this block grant funding. The Government believe in institutional autonomy, as the Bill demonstrates, and we do not want to place conditions on our universities that limit their freedom to undertake their missions as they see fit.
Research England will retain HEFCE’s research and knowledge exchange functions, including the higher education innovation fund. Research England and the new office for students will act together to deliver HEIF, as an example of the joint working between the two bodies and their shared remit to support business-university collaboration.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is moving on to paragraph (b) of the amendment, which prods me to return to a subject I touched on the other day. As this process goes along and HEFCE is, in the words of the White Paper, dissolved, there is the difficult question of the transition period. I think we agree that this is likely to be a two to three-year process. Will the Minister give any indication of the point at which Research England will become the active player in this new architecture?
Joseph Johnson
As I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question on a similar theme, we expect the office for students and UKRI to become operational in 2018-19. They will take on functions including HEIF during that period and from that day onwards. HEFCE’s knowledge exchange functions will transfer with its research functions to Research England. That includes support for the research elements of HEIF. The reforms offer significant potential to build coherence with the knowledge exchange programmes currently operated by the research councils and Innovate UK.
Knowledge exchange is an essential mechanism to support universities in effectively contributing to UK growth, as evidenced by the Chancellor’s recent announcement of £120 million of additional funding for university collaboration on technology transfer and knowledge exchange. However, as the provisions of the Bill are sufficient to allow Research England to undertake these activities, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 325.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his response and the further detail. It is particularly helpful that he has said a little more about the situation with HEIF and the timescale, which is similar to what we discussed the other day. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Exercise of functions by the Councils: supplementary
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 261, in clause 90, page 54, line 39, at end insert—
‘( ) Arrangements under subsection (1) may result in a function of UKRI being exercisable by more than one Council.”
This amendment and amendment 262 make it clear that arrangements under clause 90(1) may result in a function of UKRI being exercisable by more than one Council and that functions of UKRI which are exercisable by a Council on UKRI’s behalf under arrangements under clauses 87 to 89 or 90(1) may also be exercised by UKRI. This enables Councils and UKRI to engage in cross-cutting activities.
Joseph Johnson
Multidisciplinary research is of increasing importance in tackling complex challenges such as the impact of climate change. Currently, councils may hold and spend funds only for activity within their own remit. That means it is not within the remit of any of the research councils to manage and distribute inter and multidisciplinary funds such as the new £1.5 billion global challenges research fund.
Amendments 261 and 262 clarify clause 90 to enable UKRI and the councils to engage in multidisciplinary work more effectively. Amendment 261 makes it clear in the Bill that UKRI will enable councils to collaborate on funding multidisciplinary research. Amendment 262 proposes leaving out “in other ways” from the end of subsubsection (2), which provides further clarification that enables collaboration between UKRI and a council carrying out specific functions of UKRI.
As I have explained, these are technical drafting amendments that make it clear that UKRI and the councils are able to both continue with existing joint working and collaborate even more effectively in funding multidisciplinary research.
Amendment 261 agreed to.
Amendment made: 262, in clause 90, page 54, line 42, leave out “in other ways”—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 261.
Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
UKRI’s research and innovation strategy
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 327, in clause 91, page 55, line 8, after “approval” insert—
“(c) consult with a Committee of Executive Chairs of Councils in the development of UKRI’s strategy.”
This amendment would ensure UKRI’s governance structure includes a Committee of the Executive Chairs of the Councils who are consulted with as part of UKRI’s strategy.
Although the amendment is probing, it is important, not only in terms of the practical arrangements that must characterise the relationship between UKRI and its nine councils but in terms of the signal—or lack of signal, if the Government do not move down this road—that it is in danger of sending to the academic community and the learned societies and institutions, which have already spoken strongly about the measure. That is why we, with the advice and opinions of many of those people, have tabled the amendment, which would ensure that
“UKRI’s governance structure includes a Committee of the Executive Chairs of the Councils who are consulted with as part of UKRI’s strategy.”
I read that out carefully, because I want to engage with the paper to which the Minister referred this morning, which Committee members should have seen: “UKRI: Vision, Principles and Governance”. Produced at the beginning of this month, it is a joint paper between the Department for Education and the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The White Paper and the Bill have outlined the Government’s arrangements for UKRI and its nine councils.
The board will consist of the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chair of UKRI, as well as between nine and 12 representatives of academia and industry. We really need a huge organogram, perhaps overlaying a large 19th-century painting, on the wall at this point to understand it, but I will do my best. Each of the councils will be headed by an executive chair with five to nine ordinary council members, but—this is the crux of the matter and of this discussion—the executive chairs of the councils do not sit on the UKRI board.
The Nurse review recommended that there should be a committee of the executive chairs of the councils that includes the CEO of UKRI and provides a continuing link to UKRI’s governing board, but the governance arrangements proposed in the White Paper and the Bill do not include an executive committee, although the Bill provides UKRI with the power to establish one. The factsheet published by the Government, which I have just quoted, makes that point. It says:
“It will be critical for the Board to work closely with the Executive Chairs and ensure highly effective co-ordination across UKRI and its key partners. Therefore, our policy intent is for the Executive Chairs of the Councils—along with the CEO, CFO and other senior directors of UKRI—to sit together on an Executive Committee, to support engagement with the Board and cross-council working. This is in line with good practice on organisational governance and Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendations.”
Some people might query the definition of Sir Paul’s recommendation that the Government have chosen to incorporate into the factsheet, but even if they do not, the fact remains that it does not go as far as the Royal Society or many others have called for by making it a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill.
I return to what I have said previously: I am not questioning the current Minister’s enthusiasm or bona fides for this arrangement, simply noting an observable fact. We must legislate for all sorts of Ministers, good, bad and indifferent, over a period of time, and regulation is needed on the face of the Bill to assure people that they can survive the occasional—dare I say it—bad Minister, autocratic Minister or whatever.
The Royal Society believes that it is essential that UKRI’s
“strategy and operation is not driven only by the priorities of the Government or the Board—”
which it describes as “top down”—
“but also by the research and innovation community (bottom up).”
I see the eyes of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath lighting up at the reference to “bottom”; that is an in-joke related to a revelation that the hon. Gentleman made earlier in proceedings, Mr Hanson. We will not get into that now.
In his review of the research councils, Sir Paul Nurse
“envisaged this being realised through the establishment of an Executive Committee…Under the proposed reforms, the analogous Committee would include the Executive Chairs of the Research Councils, Innovate UK and Research England.”
The Royal Society believes that UKRI’s governance arrangements
“should include an Executive Committee of the Councils’ Executive Chairs”.
Just in case members of the Committee are beginning to think this resembles one of those medieval theological debates about how many angels could dance on the end of a pin, I think it is important to understand the issues and concerns at stake here. For that, I refer to the excellent speech by Lord Rees in the Queen’s Speech debate earlier this year, in which he discussed the proposals of the White Paper. The Minister will be pleased to note I do not intend to quote all of the speech, but I will quote a little bit of it. Lord Rees, who is a highly respected figure in academia, has strong concerns about the White Paper. He said:
“There are widely-voiced anxieties that the changes are needlessly drastic. It is proposed that all seven research councils will lose their royal charter—even the Medical Research Council, which has a global reputation and a century-old history.”
He then talked of the various things that will happen, saying:
“After any reorganisation, there are transitional hassles before the new structure beds down… When the research councils set up the so-called shared research service in 2008, the overheads went up, not down. The Government’s proposals are based on a review by Sir Paul Nurse, who accepted that the current research support system worked fairly well but aspired to improve it. It is seductive to believe that reshuffling the administrative structure will achieve this, but it may not prove either necessary or sufficient and may indeed be counterproductive. Moreover, it is already proving hard to attract people with the stature expected as heads of research councils. That may be harder still if the posts are downgraded.”
He concludes:
“It is plainly important that the existing research councils mesh together and collaborate when necessary…these aims can surely be achieved with good will and capable management within the present structure by strengthening high-level input from the CST and—”
here is the rub—
“reviving a body resembling the old advisory board for the research councils to play the role envisaged for UKRI’s board. When there are so many distracting pressures in the educational and research world—
bear in mind Lord Rees made the speech on the Queen’s Speech, before the outcome of the referendum was known and before Brexit—
“surely we should avoid risky upheaval in a system that is working reasonably well and which really needs no more than some fine-tuning.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 2016; Vol. 773, c. 79.]
The Minister and others may well dispute that, but the concerns Lord Rees articulated are not restricted to him. Others, perhaps less forcefully, have said similar things. Only today, an article has appeared in The Guardian by Stephen Curry, who is a professor of structural biology at Imperial College and a member of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. He repeats the points others have made by querying the efficacy of the Bill and suggesting, in this respect, that it is not necessarily going to do the business. He says:
“The bill does not even provide for the creation of an executive forum that would allow the heads of the new research committee to communicate the views of their researcher communities to the CEO of UKRI. Although a supplementary document published just last week by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)”—
—by which I assume he means the joint publication of BEIS and the Department for Education—
“now envisages such a committee, the system of governance is significantly more top-down than before.”
That is the point.
Joseph Johnson
I am glad to have the opportunity to give assurances on UKRI governance. First, I would like to address the proposition of a committee of executive chairs. I hope hon. Members were reassured by the fact sheet we published on 12 October, to which the hon. Gentleman referred on a number of occasions. As he said, the fact sheet states clearly that it will be critical for the UKRI board to work closely with the executive chairs and ensure highly effective co-ordination across UKRI and its key partners. Our policy intent is for the executive chairs of the councils, along with the CEO, CFO and other senior directors of UKRI, to sit together on an executive committee to support engagement with the board and cross-council working.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill does not set that out. I refer him to the general response I have given to these sorts of request for more information on the face of the Bill, which is that the Bill is a legal framework for these reforms. In drafting it, we are trying to find the right balance between providing enough detail appropriate for a piece of primary legislation and the need to allow flexibility for UKRI to develop the right governance structures, so that it can evolve swiftly in response to changes in the science and innovation landscape.
Gordon Marsden
I entirely accept that point. I said at an earlier stage that I welcome the fact that the Bill has moved away from the tradition of some preceding Bills—not in this area—of just producing a box that everything comes through. I appreciate there is a balance to be struck, but on this particular point, to which so many people in the academic and research communities are sensitive, does the Minister not understand it is important to do the maximum that can be done, even if it is not on the face of the Bill, to reassure those people?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. We understand the desire for clarity in respect of the committee. At this stage, the detailed design of UKRI will be developed in conjunction with UKRI leadership and existing partner organisations and in line with Government guidance for non-departmental bodies. The fact sheet we have published shows, I hope, that our overarching approach on governance is clear in that respect. Further details will be captured in a framework document, which we have discussed. That will be published once agreed with UKRI’s CEO and board as per the usual practice with non-departmental public bodies. I am glad, though, that the hon. Gentleman was not pressing for the executive chairs themselves to sit on the main UKRI board—that is how I understood his remarks. That is a point on which he and I are in agreement. We do not believe that that would serve the purposes of the organisation.
The second aspect of the amendment is that it would require the committee, to which we have formally committed in the fact sheet, to be consulted on UKRI strategy. It will be for UKRI itself to define the detailed process for developing the strategy. However, I assure the Committee that we would expect it to be an iterative process involving the councils and executive chairs, and informed by engagement with the relevant stakeholder communities. The executive committee, on which the hon. Gentleman is keen and about which I am enthusiastic, seems to me to be a sensible instrument to achieve that aim. I hope the Committee will agree that this is simply a matter of good organisational governance. I do not think it would be appropriate to write it into primary legislation, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for taking some time to spell out the Government’s motivation, and I heard what he had to say. I am sure there will opportunities for further questioning. As he says, it is an iterative process. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Grants to UKRI from the Secretary of State
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 263, in clause 93, page 56, line 6, at end insert—
‘( ) Where a grant is made in respect of functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 89, terms and conditions under subsection (1) may be imposed only if—
(a) they are requirements to be met before financial support of a specified amount or of a specified description is given by Research England in respect of activities carried on by an institution, and
(b) they apply to every institution, or every institution within a specified description, in respect of whose activities that support may be provided.”
This amendment provides that where the Secretary of State makes a grant to UKRI in respect of the functions exercisable by Research England (i.e. the giving of financial support to eligible higher education providers (see clause 89)), terms and conditions can only be imposed if they are requirements to be met before the financial support is given and if they apply to all institutions or institutions of a particular description.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 284, in clause 93, page 56, line 6, at end insert—
‘(1A) In making grants to UKRI under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must specify the separate allocation of funding to be made by UKRI to—
(a) functions exercisable by the Councils mentioned in section 87(1) pursuant to arrangements under that section,
(b) functions exercisable by Innovate UK pursuant to arrangements under section 88, and
(c) functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 89.
(1B) No variation may be made to the allocation of funding specified by the Secretary of State in subsection (1A) unless the House of Commons has passed a resolution approving any such variation and the variation has the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.”
This amendment would ensure there would be separate financial allocations to the Research Councils (collectively), Innovate UK, and Research England.
Government amendments 264 to 267.
Joseph Johnson
The Government amendments in this group will ensure that, in setting the terms and conditions of grants to Research England, the Secretary of State is under the same limitations as in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Specifically, amendments 263 and 265 provide that directions or terms and conditions of grants can be given only if they apply to every institution, or to every institution of a specified description. In addition, the specific requirements must be met before financial support is given. Amendments 264, 266 and 267 are consequential changes required by amendments 263 and 265, and will ensure that the purpose of clauses 93 and 94 remains clear.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister for indicating earlier that he was willing to allow me to say a few words on amendment 284 before he responds to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have been contacted by many institutions in the devolved nations about amendment 284 more than any other. They are concerned about the potential that hazard will be placed in their way because of the funding structure. The amendment would ensure separate funding allocations for the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England. It is supported not only by the significant number of institutions that I mentioned earlier, but by the Scottish Funding Council. I have had extensive discussions with Dr John Kemp, who is the acting chief executive there.
We know that Scotland performs well in attracting funding—grants, studentships and fellowships—from the research councils, although it does not do quite so well in attracting funding for research institutes and research infrastructure. We of course recognise that there is always scope for flexibility in funding, but there is a difference between building flexibility into something and building in something that will create a hazard to core funding. That is what particularly concerns me about the clause: as it stands, it will allow the Secretary of State or the UK Government, if they so wish, to alter the balance of funding among the research councils.
Any grant to UKRI is ultimately research project funding, which of course should be competitively available throughout the UK. It is therefore necessary to have transparency about what goes to UKRI and what goes to Research England, given that the funds distributed for research infrastructure by the latter body will be available only to English institutions. Separate financial allocations must be introduced for Innovate UK, Research England and the different research councils collectively.
We are extremely concerned, too, that there are no provisions in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State and the UK Government do not give directions to UKRI to move funds in year on its own initiative between constituent parts—especially to Research England. That would definitely not be in the spirit of the Nurse report, nor would it give Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland a fair and equal say in research allocation. If for whatever reason funds had to be moved between research councils and Research England or Innovate UK by the Secretary of State, that must surely happen only if the devolved Administrations gave their consent.
Amendment 284 would ensure that fairness and transparency were at the forefront of the reserved funding allocation to UKRI and the allocation to Research England. It would also ensure that the balanced funding principle was measured in relation to the proportion of funding allocated by the Secretary of State for reserved UK and devolved England-only funding, and that clarity was provided on when that might not be achieved. Many bodies that have talked to me are at a loss as to why the appropriate funding streams are not set out in the Bill. I am therefore particularly keen to hear the Minister’s response.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind colleagues that it is now 3.27 pm and the Committee finishes at 5 o’clock. Although there is potential for further debate, Members should bear that in mind if they want to debate later issues.
Joseph Johnson
I do not believe that amendment 284 is necessary. The Bill already ensures that each research council will retain significant authority and autonomy over its functions and disciplines. The Government have also set out their intention to make funding allocations to each of the councils to support those functions. As now, such allocations will be subject to Government rules and processes for managing public money. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify the allocations made to the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England, with no ability to vary allocations without the consent of Parliament. That would be restrictive, and it would not be a good use of parliamentary time to scrutinise potentially small budget flexibilities that had already been scrutinised by the Treasury.
Amendment 284 would also require the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government in respect of any variation in allocations, even when those matters were reserved to the Secretary of State. Such an amendment could compromise value for money where the time delays involved in such approvals would make any budget flexibility impractical.
Amendment 284 would therefore introduce an unnecessary and overly restrictive requirement, and to make such an amendment would hinder best practice in managing public money and make the system inflexible. UKRI is already bound by rules established for managing public money and a financial accountability and assurance framework that will be set up with the Department. Those arrangements do not constitute a reduction in oversight by Parliament or devolved Administrations, and on that basis, I ask Members to support amendment 263.
Roger Mullin
I dearly wish that I could believe the Minister’s explanation. I am willing not to press amendment 284 at this stage, but I intend to go back to all those who have expressed such deep concern and potentially bring the issue back on Report.
Amendment 263 agreed to.
Amendment made: 264, in clause 93, page 56, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) In this section “specified” means specified in the terms and conditions.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 263.
Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Grants to UKRI from the Secretary of State
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 328, in clause 94, page 56, line 24, leave out “directions” and insert “recommendations”.
This amendment would ensure this legislation is consistent with the Haldane Principle.
The amendment would address the basis on which the Secretary of State gives directions to UKRI. The suggestion of replacing “directions” with “recommendations” has come from other parties, but we are entirely happy with it. Our intention in tabling the amendment is to tease out whether the legislation is consistent with the so-called Haldane principle. Members will be familiar with the way in which, in Parliament, revered things that have a name attached to them are constantly prayed in aid. If anyone was going to ask “Who was Haldane?”, I will tell them.
The report on which the Haldane principle is based was published in the last year of the first world war. Richard, Viscount Haldane, had a distinguished career: he was Secretary of State for War, a politician, lawyer and philosopher. Eventually he did the right thing and moved over from being a radical Liberal to being the first Lord Chancellor in the first Labour Government—we must praise him for that if for nothing else. The Haldane principle is one of those arks of the covenant in academia: it is often cited, but we need to fillet it a little, because otherwise it might just become like the so-called Schleswig-Holstein question, about which I think it was Bismarck who said that only two people understood it and one of them was dead and the other had gone mad. [Interruption.] Three people—that probably included Bismarck, of course.
Whatever the Haldane principle is, it has been understood as the principle that the Government should not interfere in decisions about the allocation of expenditure for grants. The reasons for that are fairly simple and can perhaps be seen from diverse Administrations in other parts of the world where the pork barrel principle sometimes holds sway. It is welcome that the Government have considered the Haldane principle when drafting the Bill, but it is also important that we get a little more definition. There is considerable concern outside this place, particularly because of the phraseology. The Council for the Defence of British Universities, among others, has expressed particular concerns about clauses 93 and 94:
“There is serious concern that the understanding of the Haldane Principle among Government Ministers and their advisers has been narrowed in recent years, and that this is endangering the scope for academics to exercise their own judgement as to what kinds of research should be pursued.”
It expresses further concern about clause 87’s requirement for research councils to
“have regard to the desirability of…(a) contributing to economic growth in the United Kingdom, and (b) improving quality of life”.
We have debated that and I do not intend to go into again now, but the CDBU makes the point that:
“The protection for academic freedom…that was written into the Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 took the form of prohibiting the Secretary of State from placing terms and conditions on grants to HEFCE with reference to particular programmes of research—but HEFCE is about to be abolished under the new Bill. It is also unclear whether the wording in clauses 93 (2) and 94 (2) of the Bill, which is taken over from section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992…provides adequate protection for academic freedom from the effects of directions issued by the Secretary of State.”
The CDBU regards that as a reasonable basis for raising concerns.
The same is true of the Royal Society. Concerns have been expressed in the media and the society is keen to make the point that it is seeking clarification from the Government of how the Secretary of State’s proposed powers are consistent with the Haldane principle, and how the Government intend that to operate. Again, the factsheet says:
“Government is fully committed to the principle that funding decisions should be taken by experts in their relevant areas and we have ensured this is reflected in the design of UKRI.”
Our understanding is that the power to give direction is rarely invoked, but it is frequently included in legislation to allow the Government to take control in exceptional circumstances.
I have mentioned the nudge principle more than once during the passage of the Bill. We all know that the power that Governments exert over legislatures and over academics are not necessarily powers that they either have to execute or would have to execute, but the uncertainty around powers that they might have to execute often concentrates the mind of those people against, shall we say, strong, independent action, rather than towards it, so it is an important principle to tease out.
In the run-up to the passage of Bill and subsequently, there have been a number of important commentaries on that. Nick Hillman, who is the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, has already expressed concerns that the Government’s
“desire to reduce the number of arms-length bodies is being put above the importance of maintaining the independence of our research funding structures.”
The then chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who is now a ministerial colleague of the Minister in another Department, said:
“I…welcome the restatement of the Haldane principle and the Government’s intention to enshrine the dual support system into law, but bringing all funding into UK Research and Innovation—UKRI—will require a separation in practice as well as in principle if we are to preserve the excellence-based allocation on which our world-leading system is founded…We have to ensure that the structures we set in place safeguard the autonomy and the strong voices of our existing research councils while achieving the stated goal of better interdisciplinary working.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 580.]
There are voices who welcome the Government saying they will abide by the Haldane principle but who want a lot more detail at some point—hopefully we might get some today—as to how the Minister envisages that operating.
I will leave it there. I am glad to have enlightened people as to who Lord Haldane was. I hope his shade—who knows; it might be in one of the paintings down the corridor somewhere—will be looking on benignly but with a curious eye on the Minister as he attempts to explain the principle.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In practice we cannot see the pictures in the Committee.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South for the opportunity to discuss Haldane. Let me reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to the fundamental principle that funding decisions should be taken by experts in their relevant areas. As my predecessor in this role, David Willetts, said in 2010:
“excellence is and must remain the driver of funding decisions, and it is only by funding excellent research that the maximum benefits will be secured for the nation.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 139WS.]
We have ensured that that principle is reflected in the design of UKRI.
The provisions in the Bill contain several measures to protect the Haldane principle, including that UKRI will be established as an arm’s length body independent of Whitehall; that UKRI will be required to devolve functions within specified fields of activity to its constituent councils, ensuring that individual funding decisions are made by relevant experts; and that subsidiarity in the design of UKRI will ensure that the councils take all scientific and other decisions in their area where expert knowledge is essential to driving excellence.
As hon. Members know, I published a fact sheet on 12 October that sets out more details of how the Bill protects the Haldane principle, which I hope has been helpful. I do not agree that the amendment would strengthen the Haldane principle in the Bill. I believe the unintended consequence would be to weaken significantly the safeguards on public funding within the legislative framework. The Secretary of State currently has an equivalent power of direction over research councils in section 2 of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and our proposals in clause 94 are intended to mirror that.
The rationale for this power relating to the money given to UKRI, which is at present upwards of £6 billion per annum, is that the Secretary of State can deal swiftly with any financial issues arising from, for example, mismanagement. That ensures the most effective safeguard for public finances. Such powers of direction are rarely used, but given the very large sums of public money for which UKRI will be accountable, they are proportionate. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 328.
Gordon Marsden
Again, I thank the Minister for using the opportunity of our probing amendment to say a little more about how he envisages the Haldane principle being enshrined in the Bill. That has been helpful. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 265, in clause 94, page 56, line 25, at end insert—
‘( ) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in respect of functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 89, only if —
(a) it relates to requirements to be met before financial support of a specified amount or of a specified description is given by Research England in respect of activities carried on by an institution, and
(b) it relates to every institution, or every institution within a specified description, in respect of whose activities that support may be provided.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State can only give a direction about the allocation of grants to UKRI in respect of the functions exercisable by Research England if the direction relates to requirements to be met before the financial support is given and if it relates to all institutions or institutions of a particular description.
Roger Mullin
I beg to move amendment 285, in clause 94, page 56, line 25, at end insert—
‘(1A) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall give a direction to UKRI to commission an independent evaluation of the matters under subsection (1B) and shall lay the report of the evaluation before the House of Commons.
(1B) The evaluation under subsection (1A) shall consider—
(a) the effect of the absence of post study work visas for persons graduating from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom to be granted leave to remain in the UK on completion of their studies to work for up to two years for an employer on—
(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and
(ii) the UK economy, and
(b) how post study work visa arrangements, applying either broadly or to classes of students, disciplines and institutions, could operate in the UK and their effect of each on—
(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and
(ii) the UK economy.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission research from UKRI on the effects of the absence of arrangements for post study work visas and how such arrangements could operate in the UK and their effect on the higher education sector and the UK economy.
I could easily spend the next two hours discussing this subject [Hon. Members: “Oh no!”]—but perhaps I will not. This is a probing amendment, but it is important none the less, particularly for Scottish representatives. It would require the Secretary of State to commission research from UKRI on the effects of the absence of arrangements for post-study work visas, how such arrangements could operate in the UK and their effect on the higher education sector and the UK economy.
If ever there were an issue before this Parliament that demonstrates the completely different economic and social priorities of Scotland and the rest of the UK, this is it. Historically, Scotland’s problem has been not immigration but emigration. In my own family, both my brother and sister emigrated many years ago. My brother could not find a job after graduating in the early 1960s, but by the age of 30 was secretary of the Science Council of Canada and went on to be vice-president of the International Development and Research Corporation. He wrote the first science and technology paper for the free Government in South Africa after meeting Nelson Mandela but could not find a job in his own land. He was only one of thousands of people over many generations who had to emigrate.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. International student migration and post-study working arrangements are important issues for the HE sector and the Government. Brain gain is definitely the key to our sustained success as a knowledge economy, but I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for commissioning research into post-study work. The Bill is focused on creating the necessary structures that will oversee higher education and research funding for many years to come. The amendment proposes a short-term piece of research on an element of migration policy, and that is not consistent with the scope and functions of UKRI. That said, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain briefly the Government’s approach to student migration and to post-study working arrangements for international students.
The Government greatly value the contribution that international students make to our universities, including those in Scotland. We want our top universities to continue to attract the best students from around the world. The UK has a generous post-study work offer for overseas students who graduate in the UK. International graduates can remain in the UK to work following their studies by switching to several existing routes. For example, if they get a graduate-level job, they can switch to a tier 2 skilled worker visa. If they start a business, they can move to a tier 1 entrepreneur or graduate entrepreneur visa, or they can do work experience under a tier 5 temporary worker visa. There is no cap, as we have discussed previously, on the number of students who can switch to a tier 2 skilled worker visa and all degree students are potentially eligible to stay on for post-study work.
Roger Mullin
The trouble is that the requirements and criteria set for graduate-level work might well be appropriate for the south of England, but looking at the recent case of the Brain family and the amount of work needed to allow that family from Australia to get a tier 2 visa and stay and contribute in Scotland—thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—those requirements are not as suitable for our circumstances as the Government pretend. The Minister went on to talk about tier 1 visas; over the past year, in the region of 70% of applicants for tier 1 entrepreneurship visas have been rejected. It does not seem to me that that is adequate in providing for the future.
Joseph Johnson
We always want to ensure that our visa system is working well and we believe, with respect to people switching from tier 4—the student route—into tier 2, that it is working well at present. Certainly, at least looking at the numbers of people switching, under our current arrangements more than 6,000 international students switched from tier 4 into tier 2 in the UK in 2015; that is an increase from around 5,500 in 2014 and 4,000 in 2013. The hon. Gentleman mentioned tier 1 and the number of rejections. That reflects an element of abuse in the old tier 1 category, which was then the post-study work category, with a published Home Office assessment undertaken in October 2010 finding that three in five of the then tier 1 migrants were in unskilled work. That is the basis on which changes were made to our system.
Until 2012 there was a dedicated post-study work route under tier 1 of the visa system, as I just mentioned, which saw a significant number of fraudulent applications and graduates who were remaining unemployed or in low-skilled work. That is why we replaced it with a more selective system, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This reform to post-study work has not prevented the UK from attracting international students. Since 2010, applications to UK universities have gone up by about 14% and we remain the second most popular destination in the world after the US for international students.
I am therefore unconvinced that such research would add value, given that the current visa system provides generous post-study work opportunities and the Government will, in any case, shortly be consulting on these issues. As I have explained, the Bill is in any case not the appropriate mechanism for commissioning such research. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Roger Mullin
I am happy to say I have made my point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 266, in clause 94, page 56, line 26, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 265.
Amendment 267, in clause 94, page 56, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) In this section “specified” means specified in the direction.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 265.
Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Balanced funding and advice from UKRI
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 329, in clause 95, page 57, line 4, leave out “reasonable”.
This amendment seeks to establish what a reasonable balance between Quality Related funding and project-specific funding is and to clarify how the dual support system will be protected by this legislation.
The amendment might seem perverse, but it is a mechanism to explore with the Government what a reasonable balance is between quality-related funding and project-specific funding, and to clarify how the dual support system will be protected by the legislation. Again, as with the Haldane principle, which we just discussed, the Bill seeks to enshrine dual support in legislation for the first time. This is welcome; it has been welcomed by many people in the sector. This is a probing amendment to clarify how it will be protected by the legislation or, in other words, to invite the Minister to comment on what he, his officials and any others who he would expect to make judgments would expect a reasonable balance actually to look like.
The dual support system underpins our excellent research base, and I will not go into all the ways in which it is disbursed—we have dealt with that previously—but it would be helpful to understand what would be a reasonable balance between the two funding streams.
As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has asked, how will the principle operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The Government’s October paper on UKRI says:
“The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider the balance between these two funding streams ensuring that the dynamic balance that stakeholders have supported is protected and preserved.”
That is an interesting phrase, “the dynamic balance”. I am not sure what I think it means, but I know that concerns have been expressed not about the enshrining of the duty in the Bill but about precisely what teeth the enshrinement will have.
Chris Hale, the director of policy at Universities UK, wrote “The Higher Education White Paper—all you need to know” in May 2016, in which he said:
“At face value we will see for the first time dual support enshrined in a legislative arrangement (to date dual support has been largely a matter of convention), but the critical question is does this go far enough? While the Secretary of State may have to consider the balance under this new duty, this provision does not necessarily secure the health and dynamism”—
that interesting phrase again—
“of dual support. This is one to watch carefully and there may be scope to strengthen this in the Bill.”
Similarly, the Council for the Defence of British Universities has said that
“while the White Paper contained an undertaking…the requirement in clause 95 of the Bill that the Secretary of State should ‘have regard to…the balanced funding principle’ appears vague”.
The CDBU refers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith)—both Oxford constituencies are getting a mention today—and his excellent speech on Second Reading, in which he aired some of the concerns of his constituents and, if memory serves, although I stand to be corrected, the University of Oxford on how the principle will be enacted.
The Minister referred to the Stern review earlier, and the CDBU says:
“An approach to strengthening the wording in the Bill is suggested by a passage in the Stern Review of the REF…which states that, in addition to competitive grant funding, the capacity of universities to sustain excellent research depends on ‘a long-term, stable block grant that allows universities to invest strategically in research in ways which foster its future development’. If all funding streams are administered through one body (i.e. UKRI), as currently proposed, this endangers the separate purposes of the two funding streams.”
The Minister may or may not wish to dissent from that view, which is put another way by the Royal Society in its commentary. It says:
“The ‘balanced funding principle’ is the principle that it is necessary to ensure that a reasonable balance, suitable for maintaining the long-term excellence and efficiency of the UK research base, and preserving the values, customs, partnerships and practices that have underpinned these, including allocation based on both retrospective and prospective assessment is achieved in the allocation of funding…However, we are not convinced that the ‘balanced funding principle’ as currently defined in the Bill includes sufficient content to fully embody the dual support system. The ‘balanced funding principle’ should be defined to make it clear that it entails substantial portions of research funding being allocated both via the block grant and via Research Councils. We would suggest the definition of the principle of balanced funding should be strengthened to make explicit reference to maintaining the values and customs of the research base, including a balance of retrospective and prospective assessments.”
Those sentiments and that terminology are not far away from the concerns that the CDBU expressed or, indeed, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East mentioned on Second Reading.
I would be grateful if the Minister could muse—if that is the right word—on the appropriateness of the word “reasonable” and on what it means, and give us a bit more chapter and verse on how he envisages the dual support being carried out in practice through legislation, as opposed to the statement of good intent, which we welcome.
Joseph Johnson
I am pleased to have the opportunity to share with the Committee more detail about how the Government are setting out in legislation for the first time the dual support system for research and introducing, in legislation, the concept that the balance between the two funding streams is important. That is a significant enshrinement in law of one of the key features underpinning the success of our research system. Up until now, pretty much with the stroke of a pen at any fiscal event the dual support system could be done away with, and that will not be possible once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Stern’s recent review of the research excellence framework described the two strands of the dual support system as
“essential, intertwined and mutually supportive”
drivers of the UK’s success in research. Dual support combines project funding for excellent research proposals, which is forward looking, with formula-based block grant funding that rewards performance retrospectively. So one element is forward looking and the other is backward looking. In his report, Sir Paul Nurse described the system as
“one of the bedrocks of UK research”
that was identified as critical to the UK’s world-leading reputation. The legislation ensures that in the future it will be mandatory to provide support for the block grant provided by Research England, and for the funding provided by the research councils.
Clause 95 introduces an additional obligation to provide proportionate funding for each of the two parts of dual support, first to ensure that what constitutes a reasonable balance for dual support is considered carefully by the Secretary of State before grants to UKRI are made.
Joseph Johnson
I am just coming to the hon. Gentleman’s point—I am going to anticipate his question. Secondly, the Secretary of State must consider any advice from UKRI about what that reasonable balance may be.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is semi-telepathic. I was going to touch on that point, but I was also going to touch on how he envisages the assessment being made. Ultimately, this is about sums of money and the balance between retrospective and prospective funding. Who, in that scenario, would make those sorts of decisions?
Joseph Johnson
The Secretary of State will be required to consider UKRI’s advice on the balance of funding. The new legal protections will apply to future Governments as much as to this one. We have already shown in our two previous spending reviews our consistent support for science funding and the dual support system, but we want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible for Governments to respond to the circumstances at the time, which is why we do not seek to fix a specific proportion for dual support in the Bill.
When considering what the balance of funding should be, we expect that the Secretary of State will, as now, consider issues such as the strategic priorities of the research base, the sustainability of higher education institutions, research capability and other research facilities supported through the UKRI budget. So balanced means taking into account the balance of those kinds of interests, which will determine how the Secretary of State will support the dual support system in his allocation decisions.
The Secretary of State will continue to allocate the councils’ budgets separately through an annual grant letter to UKRI. The allocations of the research councils on the one hand and Research England on the other will, as now, make up that dual support system.
Legislation must be sufficiently flexible for Governments to respond to circumstances at the time, but they will have to consider the balance of dual funding, unlike now, where no such protection exists. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this provision has been warmly welcomed by a huge number of key stakeholders across the sector. We have heard enough from several of them already, so I will not give them another outing; we do not need to rest on our laurels in that respect. To ensure that the new protection for dual support that is so welcomed by the research community is delivered through this legislation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I only pause to reflect that in politics, there can never be too much gilding of the lily. I take the points he has made. His remarks are a helpful contribution to what I am sure will be a continuing discussion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 ordered stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 96 to 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99
Provision of research services
Amendment made: 268, in clause 99, page 58, line 5, leave out “in relation to” and insert “into”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This is a drafting amendment to ensure that clause 99 is more consistent with other clauses in Part 3.
Clause 99, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 100 and 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Definitions
Amendment made: 269, in clause 102, page 59, line 4, leave out “social science” and insert “social sciences”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment amends the definition of “science” in Part 3 so that it includes social sciences and so ensures consistency with the language used in clause 87(1).
Clause 102, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 103 and 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
Transfer schemes
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 270, in schedule 10, page 98, line 13, after “means” insert “the Secretary of State or”.
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to be a “permitted transferor” for the purposes of a property transfer scheme or staff transfer scheme made under Schedule 10.
Joseph Johnson
These amendments provide additional, complementary powers to those already in the Bill, to enable an orderly and efficient transfer of staff, property and assets. We have reflected further on the Bill’s provisions as we prepare for transition, and the amendments are intended to help make the transition planning more straightforward.
Amendment 270 empowers the Secretary of State to be a permitted transferor alongside HEFCE, OFFA, Innovate UK and the research councils. That will mean, for example, that when the Department for Education stops regulating what are currently known as alternative providers and the OFS becomes responsible for regulating all providers, there will be an option to transfer DFE resources to the OFS to support that where appropriate.
Amendment 271 creates a standard provision consistent with precedent transfer scheme powers in other legislation, such as the Public Bodies Act 2011. It enables modifications to be made to transfer schemes so that the changes have effect as if they had been in place at the original date of the scheme. That is the most efficient way to enable tidying-up exercises where, for example, the destination or arrangements relating to staff or assets might for legitimate reasons be reassessed during the transition process.
Amendment 270 agreed to.
Amendment made: 271, in schedule 10, page 99, line 14, leave out from “provide” to end of line 15 and insert—
“(a) for the scheme to be modified by agreement after it comes into effect, and
(b) for any such modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme comes into effect.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment makes it clear that modifications to a property transfer scheme or staff transfer scheme under Schedule 10 can be made so as to have effect from the date on which the scheme came into effect.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105
Power to make consequential provision etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
I am sorry if I have delayed a bundling up of clauses.
The power to make consequential provision of one sort or another often appears in Bills. It is a phrase that slips off the tongue and sometimes down the gullet rather too easily. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the implications of subsection (2), which reads:
“(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify—
(a) primary or secondary legislation passed or made before this Act or in the same Session as this Act, or
(b) subject to subsection (3), a Royal Charter granted before this Act is passed or in the same Session as this Act.”
Those anodyne phrases, which have been polished over many years by parliamentary draftspeople, can often pass by unnoticed, but in this context it is worth debating for a few moments the propriety of the Secretary of State being given such powers when we are told that they will involve, for good or ill—people can make their own decision—the overturning of not 100 years but several centuries of custom and practice with royal charters. Some people believe that the Bill will also cause a major shift in the relationship between the higher education sector and the state—a relationship that anyone who is of an antiquarian disposition, or even just knows their history, will know goes back nearly 800 years. That is why several organisations have called for changes to be made to the Bill.
I am particularly unhappy about the complete removal of the powers of royal charters. We have debated that issue previously, and I do not intend to go over it again, but this clause is the practical expression of that airbrushing out of royal charters and a long-stop to the development of powers for the Office for Students. That is why Universities UK has called for a higher threshold of evidence to be required of the OFS before it can take sanctions against an institution. The University of Cambridge said in its evidence that the revocation of degree-awarding powers or university title
“is not a decision to be made without a high level of scrutiny and proper accountability.”
This is not simply an arcane argument among academics, because as the Opposition have endeavoured to emphasise, what affects universities, particularly in the 21st century, is not just what affects their students and academics but what affects the people who work in them, the local economies that are affected by them and so on. It is therefore not arcane or antiquarian to discuss whether the Government are going too far in this issue.
As it happens, two articles in the last couple of weeks—an editorial in Nature and an article in the Financial Times—have made the point that the Government need to be challenged closely on these issues, in a way that frankly we were not able to do on Second Reading. We have endeavoured to begin that process in Committee, but I suspect it will have to continue in another place. There is a fundamental question to be asked. If the Government answer it satisfactorily, with the right assurances that the powers that the clause gives the Secretary of State will be exercised judiciously and reasonably, perhaps everybody will close their books and say, “Well, there we are. We don’t have to worry about keeping royal charters and all the rest of it.” The onus is on the Government to make that demonstration, and I submit that they have not made that case very strongly so far in Committee.
Joseph Johnson
I say at the outset that the clause is an entirely standard provision; it is essential to be able to update previous legislation to bring it in line with the Bill. However, I am glad to have the chance to address the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Clause 105 enables the Secretary of State to make changes, by regulation, to other legislation, as a consequence of provision made by or under the Bill. Royal charters can be amended only in consequence of provision made by or under the clauses on degree-awarding powers or university title. The Bill provides that such changes be made by regulations that are subject to either the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure, depending on the nature of the changes. If they amend or repeal an Act of the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland legislation or a royal charter, the regulations must follow the affirmative procedure; otherwise, the negative procedure is to be followed.
Let me provide some further colour to that rather technical description. We have long recognised that in order to be able to regulate the sector effectively, refined express powers to remove degree-awarding powers in very serious cases are vital. Those powers signal to the sector what is at stake if standards fall. A key focus of the new system will continue to be quality and the protection of the English higher education system. That would be undermined if a provider’s quality were to drop to unacceptable standards and it could none the less continue to award degrees or call itself a university. The Bill therefore includes express powers to vary and remove degree-awarding powers and to remove university title, giving the OFS the power to intervene where necessary, which will help to protect both students and the quality and reputation of English higher education.
The powers are intended to be applied only if other sanctions and interventions have failed to produce the necessary results. Some might say that the express powers are a risk to students, but the opposite is the case. If a provider was to lose its degree-awarding powers under the new system, we would expect student protection plans to come into force, enabling students to complete their degree. That is far less risky than asking students to stay with a poor provider and to continue to pay for poor provision.
Several higher education institutions have been established via royal charters. We do not propose to change that. The Bill does not revoke universities’ royal charters, and we envisage that powers to amend them will be used only in the rare circumstances where it may become necessary following the OFS’s removal of degree-awarding powers or university title enshrined in a royal charter. In such situations, and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the Secretary of State will be able to amend royal charters. That power is explicitly limited and can only be used if appropriate and, importantly, in consequence of provisions that relate to degree-awarding powers and university title. The power is necessary to give seamless effect to the new powers to vary or remove degree-awarding powers and remove university title, and it will help create a level playing field for all new providers.
The powers in the clause are explicitly limited and can be used only if appropriate and in consequence of provisions that relate to degree-awarding powers and university title. We do not envisage a scenario where that would result in the revocation of an entire royal charter that established an institution. Importantly, there are safeguards in clauses 44, 45, 54 and 55, which apply to any decisions by the OFS to vary or revoke degree-awarding powers and university title. Those powers include the right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal, which is an important independent check that means that the OFS cannot just revoke degree-awarding powers and university title contained in a royal charter. The Secretary of State cannot make any consequential amendments to royal charters because of provisions in the Bill, or following the exercise of OFS’s powers, without parliamentary scrutiny.
The clause ensures that the provisions in the Bill work as intended, while preserving an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for the legislative changes that need to be made. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 106 to 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 1
Amendment made: 111, in schedule 11, page 102, line 30, at end insert—
“21A (1) Section 82 (joint exercise of functions) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (1) to (1B).
(3) In subsection (2), for “Great Britain” substitute “Wales and Scotland”.
(4) In subsection (2A), after “Scottish” insert “Further and”.
(5) In subsection (3)(a)—
(a) for “a higher education funding council” substitute “the HEFCW”,
(b) for “the National Assembly of Wales” substitute “the Welsh Ministers”,
(c) for “it is discharging its” substitute “they are discharging their”, and
(d) after “Scottish” insert “Further and”.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment repeals subsections (1) to (1B) of section 82 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in consequence of the provision made in amendment NC3. It also amends the remainder of that section to remove the Higher Education Funding Council for England from its provisions, to make consequential changes and to update references to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the National Assembly for Wales.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12
Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 3
Amendments made: 272, in schedule 12, page 109, line 24, at end insert—
“20A The Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
20B (1) Schedule 3A (functions exercisable concurrently or jointly with the Welsh Ministers) (which is inserted by the Wales Act 2016) is amended as follows.
(2) In the Table in paragraph 1(2), in the entry relating to the Science and Technology Act 1965, in the column headed ‘Functions’, after ‘relating to’ insert ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation and’.”
This amendment amends Schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (which is inserted by the Wales Bill) so that the functions of a Minister of the Crown under section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 (powers to support research etc), so far as relating to UKRI, are not exercisable concurrently with the Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 273, in schedule 12, page 109, line 28, at end insert—
“21A (1) In Part 2 of Schedule 7A (specific reservations) (which is inserted by the Wales Act 2016), Section C11 (Research Councils) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, at the beginning insert ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation and’.
(3) In paragraph 85—
(a) at the beginning insert ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation (‘UKRI’), and’, and
(b) after ‘relating to’ insert ‘UKRI and’.
(4) In paragraph 86—
(a) omit ‘Arts and Humanities Research Council within the meaning of Part 1 of the Higher Education Act 2004, and the’,
(b) for ‘that Act’ substitute ‘the Higher Education Act 2004’, and
(c) for ‘that Council’ substitute ‘UKRI’.”.
This amendment amends the reservation regarding Research Councils in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (which is inserted by the Wales Bill) to ensure that UKRI (like Research Councils) is a reserved matter and to take account of the Arts and Humanities Research Council ceasing to exist under clause 101.
Amendment 274, in schedule 12, page 109, line 37, at beginning insert
“In the English language text,”.
This amendment and amendments 275, 276 and 278 ensure that both the English language text and the Welsh language text of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 are amended by Schedule 12 to reflect the establishment of UKRI and the fact that its predecessor bodies cease to have effect.
Amendment 275, in schedule 12, page 110, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) In the Welsh language text, omit the entries relating to—
(a) Cyngor Cyfleusterau Gwyddoniaeth a Thechnoleg,
(b) Cyngor Ymchwil Biotechnoleg a Gwyddorau Biolegol,
(c) Y Cyngor Ymchwil Economaidd a Chymdeithasol,
(d) Y Cyngor Ymchwil Meddygol,
(e) Cyngor Ymchwil Peirianneg a Gwyddorau Ffisegol,
(f) Cyngor Ymchwil yr Amgylchedd Naturiol, and
(g) Y Cyngor Ymchwil i‘r Celfyddydau a‘r Dyniaethau.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 274.
Amendment 276, in schedule 12, page 110, line 5, at beginning insert
“In the English language text,”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 274.
Amendment 277, in schedule 12, page 110, line 7, in column 1 after “Innovation” insert
“(“Ymchwil ac Arloesedd y Deyrnas Unedig”)”.
This amendment inserts a reference to the Welsh name for “United Kingdom Research and Innovation” in an amendment made to the English language text of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 by Schedule 12.
Amendment 278, in schedule 12, page 110, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) In the Welsh language text, insert at the appropriate place under the heading ‘cyffredinol’—
‘Ymchwil ac Arloesedd y Deyrnas Unedig (‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation’) | Safonau cyflenwi gwasanaethau |
Safonau llunio polisi | |
Safonau gweithredu | |
Safonau cadw cofnodion’”. |
—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 274.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 279, in schedule 12, page 110, line 12, leave out from “Crown)” to end of line 14 and insert—
“, in paragraph (a), for ‘the Natural Environment Research Council’ substitute ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation’”.
This amendment amends the amendment made by paragraph 24 of Schedule 12 to section 10(4)(a) of the Antarctic Act 2013 to ensure that the reference in that provision to the British Antarctic Survey is retained.
Joseph Johnson
The amendments are all consequential amendments to other legislation. Amendments 279 and 280 are to schedule 12, and make a number of consequential amendments that reflect the impact of part 3 of the Bill on existing legislation. Paragraph 24 of schedule 12 is specifically directed at the Antarctic Act 2013. In making these changes, we wish to preserve a reference to the British Antarctic Survey, which is currently contained in section 10(4) of the Antarctic Act 2013. As originally drafted, paragraph 24 of schedule 12 did not achieve that objective. Amendment 279 ensures the correct change will be made to section 10(4) of the 2013 Act.
Amendment 280 is a technical amendment necessary to ensure that the territorial scope of the 2013 Act remains unchanged after it is amended to account for the creation of UKRI. Amendment 281 relates to clause 111, which sets out the territorial extent of the provisions of the Bill, some of which extend to the whole of the UK, and some of which extend only to England and Wales. Schedule 12 makes provision for minor and consequential amendments to existing legislation, including the Patents Act 1977. That Act also extends to the Isle of Man as well as the whole of the United Kingdom. This technical amendment ensures that the amendments and repeals made to section 41 of the Patents Act by schedule 12 will have the same extent as that section, which includes the Isle of Man.
Amendment 279 agreed to.
Amendments made: 280, in schedule 12, page 110, line 14, at end insert—
“(2) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 34 of the Antarctic Act 1994 (power to extend to the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories) apply in relation to section 10 of the Antarctic Act 2013 as amended by sub-paragraph (1).”.
The Antarctic Act 2013 confers a power to extend the provisions of Part 1 of that Act to the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories (see section 18 of that Act). This amendment provides that the power of extension can be used to extend section 10 of that Act as amended by the Bill to any of those jurisdictions.
Amendment 312, in schedule 12, page 110, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment means that pension schemes established for members or staff of an existing research council remain within Schedule 10 to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (and are therefore subject to the restrictions in section 31 of that Act).
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111
Extent
Amendments made: 112, in clause 111, page 61, line 23, at end insert—
“() section25 (rating the quality of, and standards applied to, higher education);”.
This amendment and amendment 113 are linked to amendment 40 and provide for clause 25 and clause 75 (which contains relevant definitions) to form part of the law of Scotland and of Northern Ireland (as well as the law of England and Wales) in light of the application of clause 25 to Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish higher education providers as a result of amendment 40.
Amendment 113, in clause 111, page 61, line 25, at end insert—
“() section75 (meaning of ‘English higher education provider’ etc);”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.
Amendment 281, in clause 111, page 61, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (3) does not apply to the amendments and repeals made by paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 to section 41 of the Patents Act 1977 which have the same extent as that section.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment ensures that the amendments and repeals made to section 41 of the Patents Act 1977 by Schedule 12 to the Bill have the same extent as that section - which includes the Isle of Man.
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Commencement
Amendments made: 114, in clause 112, page 61, line 39, after “103” insert “and section (Joint working)”.
This amendment provides for NC3 to be commenced by regulations.
Amendment 115, in clause 112, page 61, line 39, after “103” insert—
“and section (Advice to Northern Ireland departments)”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides for NC17 to be commenced by regulations
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 313, in clause 112, page 61, line 39, after “103” insert “and section (Pre-commencement consultation)”.
This amendment provides for clause (Pre-commencement consultation) to be commenced by regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 16—Pre-commencement consultation.
Joseph Johnson
I want to ensure that the OFS and UKRI, as new bodies, are in a strong position to make an impact from the outset, so it is essential we make provision for preparatory to work to begin ahead of them coming into being. The amendment will allow the OFS and UKRI to rely upon consultations carried out by the Secretary of State, the director of fair access, in the case of OFS’s, or HEFCE, before the consultation provisions of the Bill come into force, as if that consultation had been carried out by the OFS or UKRI under those provisions. That means that requirements on the OFS and UKRI to consult can be taken forward in advance on their behalf, so that planning can begin on the systems they will rely on. That will help to ensure a smooth and orderly transition. It also means the sector will not have to wait until the new bodies are in place before it can be legitimately consulted on key aspects of the reforms, such as registration conditions and the new regulatory framework.
Amendment 313 agreed to.
Amendment made: 282, in clause 112, page 61, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections 78, 79 and 80 come into force, so far as relating to a matter specified in an entry in column 1 of the following table, on such day as the person specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the table may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint, after consulting the person (if any) specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the table.
TABLE
Matters: | Commencement by: | After consulting: |
Powers exercisable by the Welsh Ministers | The Welsh Ministers | |
Powers exercisable by the Secretary of State concurrently with the Welsh Ministers | The Secretary of State | The Welsh Ministers |
Powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to Wales | The Secretary of State | The Welsh Ministers |
Other matters | The Secretary of State.” |
—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides for clauses 78, 79 and 80 (financial support for students) to be brought into force by the Welsh Ministers, so far as relating to powers exercisable by them; by the Secretary of State after consulting the Welsh Ministers, so far as relating to powers exercisable by the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers concurrently, or by the Secretary of State in relation to Wales; and otherwise by the Secretary of State.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 283, in clause 112, page 61, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) Section(Amendments to powers to support research) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment provides for NC7 (which amends powers to support research under the Science and Technology Act 1965 and the Higher Education Act 2004) to come into force 2 months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 7—Amendments to powers to support research.
Joseph Johnson
The majority of research funding is administered by the seven research councils, HEFCE in England and equivalent bodies in the devolved Administrations. That will continue with the advent of UKRI. However, an additional proportion of research funding is allocated by Ministers through powers apportioned in section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 and section 10 of the Higher Education Act 2004. It is under those powers that, for example, BEIS funds the UK Space Agency.
In this Bill, the powers of UKRI to fund research are defined as powers to make
“grants, loans or other payments”
and to set terms and conditions for those—for example, to charge interest. However, there is no equivalent clarity in the 1965 Act and 2004 Act on the funding powers of Ministers. The amendment will ensure there is equivalence between UKRI and Ministers’ powers under those Acts. It will also ensure that Ministers and UKRI are able to make grants, loans or other payments and to specify terms and conditions.
Amendment 283 agreed to.
Amendment made: 118, in clause 112, page 62, line 3, leave out subsection (3)—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 282.
Clause 112, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Retention of fee related income
“(1) The OfS must pay its fee income to the Secretary of State except to the extent that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, directs otherwise.
(2) “Fee income” means the sums received by the OfS by way of—
(a) fees charged under section 63 (registration fees) or 64 (other fees), or
(b) costs recovered by virtue of regulations made under section 63(2)(f) or 64(2)(g).
(3) The OfS must pay its other fee related income to the Secretary of State.
(4) “Other fee related income” means the sums received by the OfS by way of—
(a) penalties imposed by virtue of regulations made under section 63(2)(g) or 64(2)(h), or
(b) interest charged by virtue of regulations made under section 63(2)(i) or 64(2)(j).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion after clause 64, requires the OfS to pay the fees which it receives under clauses 63 and 64, and the costs which it recovers in recovering those fees, to the Secretary of State except to the extent that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, directs otherwise. It also requires the OfS to pay the penalties and interest imposed under those clauses to the Secretary of State.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Joint working
“(1) A relevant authority may exercise any of its functions jointly with another relevant authority if the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that it appears to the relevant authorities concerned that exercising the function jointly—
(a) will be more efficient, or
(b) will enable them more effectively to exercise any of their functions.
(3) In this section “relevant authority” means—
(a) the OfS,
(b) UKRI, but only in relation to functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements made under section89,
(c) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales,
(d) the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council,
(e) the Secretary of State to the extent that the Secretary of State is exercising functions under section 14 of the Education Act 2002 (power to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or children etc),
(f) the Welsh Ministers to the extent that they are exercising their functions under Part 2 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (further and sixth form education in Wales), or
(a) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, in relation to funding higher education, or research, in Northern Ireland but only to the extent that the Department is exercising functions in connection with such funding.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(g) “higher education” has the same meaning as in Article 2(2) of the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15)).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion in Part 4 of the Bill, allows relevant authorities to work together if it appears to them to be more efficient or would allow any of the authorities to exercise their functions more effectively.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Amendments to powers to support research
“(1) In section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 (further powers of Secretary of State), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) The power to give financial support under subsection (1)(a) includes, in particular, power to make a grant, loan or other payment, on such terms and conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
(1ZB) The terms and conditions may, in particular—
(a) enable the relevant authority to require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by it if any of the terms and conditions subject to which the sums were paid is not complied with,
(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the relevant authority in accordance with any of the terms and conditions remains unpaid, and
(c) require a person to whom financial support is given to provide the relevant authority with any information it requests for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions.
(1ZC) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), ‘the relevant authority’ means—
(a) in the case of the power of the Secretary of State to give financial support under subsection (1)(a), the Secretary of State;
(b) in the case of the power of the Welsh Ministers to give financial support under subsection (1)(a), the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in the case of the power of the Scottish Ministers to give financial support under subsection (1)(a), the Scottish Ministers.’
(2) In section 10 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (research in arts and humanities), after subsection (4) insert—
‘(5) The powers under this section to give financial support include, in particular, power to make a grant, loan or other payment, on such terms and conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
(6) The terms and conditions may, in particular—
(a) enable the relevant authority to require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by it if any of the terms and conditions subject to which the sums were paid is not complied with,
(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the relevant authority in accordance with any of the terms and conditions remains unpaid, and
(c) require a person to whom financial support is given to provide the relevant authority with any information it requests for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), ‘the relevant authority’ means—
(a) in the case of the power under subsection (1)(a), the Secretary of State;
(b) in the case of the power under subsection (2)(a), the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in the case of the power under subsection (3)(a), the Scottish Ministers;
(d) in the case of the power under subsection (4)(a), the Northern Ireland Department having responsibility for higher education.’”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This new clause, which is for insertion after clause 101, amends section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 and section 10 of the Higher Education Act 2004 to make clear that the powers they contain to provide financial support for research include power to make grants, loans or other payments subject to terms and conditions - including those which may require the recipient of support to repay sums, pay interest and provide information.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Pre-commencement consultation
“(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply in relation to a provision of this Act under or by virtue of which the OfS has a function of consulting another person.
(2) At any time before the provision comes into force (and whether before or after the passing of this Act), the Secretary of State, the DFA or HEFCE or any of them acting jointly—
(a) may carry out any consultation that the OfS would have power or a duty to carry out after the provision comes into force, and
(b) for that purpose, may prepare drafts of any documents to which the consultation relates.
(3) At any time after the provision comes into force, the OfS may elect to treat any consultation carried out or other thing done under subsection (2) by the Secretary of State, the DFA or HEFCE (or any of them acting jointly) as carried out or done by the OfS.
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply in relation to a provision of this Act under or by virtue of which UKRI has a function of consulting another person.
(5) At any time before the provision comes into force (and whether before or after the passing of this Act), the Secretary of State or HEFCE or the Secretary of State and HEFCE acting jointly—
(a) may carry out any consultation that UKRI would have power or a duty to carry out after the provision comes into force, and
(b) for that purpose, may prepare drafts of any documents to which the consultation relates.
(6) At any time after the provision comes into force, UKRI may elect to treat any consultation carried out or other thing done under subsection (5) by the Secretary of State or HEFCE (or the Secretary of State and HEFCE acting jointly) as carried out or done by UKRI.
(7) In this section—
‘the DFA’ means the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education;
‘HEFCE’ means the Higher Education Funding Council for England.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion after clause 106, enables the OfS to rely upon consultation carried out by the Secretary of State, the DFA or HEFCE before the consultation provisions of the Bill come into force as if that consultation were carried out by the OfS under those provisions. It also enables UKRI to rely upon consultation carried out by the Secretary of State or HEFCE before the consultation provisions come into force as if the consultation were carried out by UKRI.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Advice to Northern Ireland departments
“(1) The OfS and UKRI may provide such advisory services as the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland may require in connection with the discharge of the Department’s functions relating to higher education in Northern Ireland.
(2) The services may be provided on such terms as may be agreed.
(3) For the purposes of this section ‘higher education’ has the same meaning as in Article 2(2) of the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15)).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion in Part 4 of the Bill, makes provision for the OfS and UKRI similar to the provision made in section 69(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 regarding the Higher Education Funding Council for England and allows for the provision of advice to the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
De-registration: notification of students
“(1) The governing body of a higher education provider must inform all students enrolled on a course if it—
(a) is notified by the OfS of its intention to suspend the provider’s registration under section 17(1),
(b) is notified by the OfS of its intention to remove it from the register under section 19(1),
(c) is notified by the OfS that it will refuse to approve a new access and participation plan under section 21(2), or
(d) has applied to be removed from the register under section 22(1),
(2) The governing body of an institution must notify students under subsection (1) by the date on which—
(a) the suspension takes effect,
(b) the de-registration takes effect, whether enforced or voluntary, or
(c) the expiry date of any existing access and participation plan that will not be renewed and the period of time for which approval of a new plan will be refused, whichever is applicable”—(Gordon Marsden.)
This amendment would require that any students still undertaking courses at that provider are notified if the provider becomes deregistered.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Paul Blomfield
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This may be the last topic we debate as part of our proceedings, but it is by no means the least. If carried, the new clause would not affect many people, but it would have a profound impact on those who were affected. It would allow all refugees resettled to the UK, as well as those young people who, having made an application for asylum, are granted a form of leave other than refugee status, to access student finance and home fees. That would be of particular benefit to the Syrian refugees who are being resettled in this country under the Government’s own plans. Only small numbers are affected, but those of us who represent universities will have dealt with cases in which people have tragically been denied opportunities to fulfil their potential in our university system. The provision would have a huge impact on individuals.
Let me explain the context. Currently, individuals with refugee status are able to access student finance and to qualify for home fees status from the moment they are awarded their protection. However, those with the slightly different status of humanitarian protection are treated differently. To receive financial support they have to be able to show that they have been ordinarily resident for at least three years at the start of the academic year. The group most affected are the Syrian refugees currently being resettled in the UK under the vulnerable person resettlement programme, because they are granted humanitarian protection rather than refugee status.
The result of the current position is that a young Syrian refugee arriving in the UK today does not qualify for student finance until the start of the 2020 academic year. The only exception is if they are resettled in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have introduced a special fees status for resettled Syrians, which allows them immediately to access student support. I commend them for that. Subsection (2)(a) of the new clause would ensure that all resettled refugees, no matter what status they are given or which nation of the UK they live in, would be able to access student support immediately. Subsection (2)(b) would make student finance available for those granted humanitarian protection after making an application for asylum.
As set out in the immigration rules, humanitarian protection is granted to people who would face a real risk of suffering harm if they were to return to their home country, including the risks of death, torture and inhumane treatment, or their life being at risk due to armed conflict. The future of those granted humanitarian protection after applying for asylum is clearly in the UK—this is where they will build their lives—so they should be allowed to access university education, not simply so that they can build their lives here but so that they can contribute fully to the society of which they will be part.
Subsection (2)(b) would also provide access to student finance and home fees status to people who have applied for asylum and then been granted another form of immigration leave. In such cases, the Government have accepted that the immediate future of those individuals is in the UK. They should be given every opportunity to contribute and to develop, yet they currently face significant hurdles in doing so because in 2012 the Government changed the rules so that potential university students in that situation could no longer get the student finance they had previously been able to access. They were also reclassified as international students, meaning that they would face—and have faced—much higher fees.
The Supreme Court found the rules discriminatory and as a result a new criterion of long residence was introduced. However, young people who have gone through the asylum process, including those who arrived as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, are unlikely to meet the long residence criterion and will have to watch while their school peers go off to university, leaving them behind with no opportunities. New clause 12 is not about creating special circumstances for refugees and other young people who have arrived in the UK seeking asylum. It would simply remove existing barriers that prevent young people who come to the UK seeking protection and who are capable of attending university from fulfilling their potential. It is a wrong we should right.
Roger Mullin
I would like to say a few words in praise of the new clause. I have moved 10 amendments today. Many dozens of amendments have been tabled, but I think this is the most important one we face, because this is the one that speaks to who we are as a community and as a people. I would like to praise and thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the work the Scottish Government have done in this field. I hope that any civilised society would see the need to support this measure.
Joseph Johnson
I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for tabling this new clause, which relates to access to support for students recognised as needing protection. I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and recognise his commitment to this issue. It is one that is already addressed, however, within the student support regulations.
I am pleased to say that those who come to this country and obtain international protection are already able to access student support. Our regulations have for some time included provision for those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and their family members. In addition, we have recently amended the regulations to allow those who have been in the UK as a matter of fact for at least half their lives or at least 20 years to access student support after three years of lawful residence.
Those persons entering the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme and granted humanitarian protection will be eligible, like UK nationals, to obtain student support and home fees status after only three years’ residence in the UK. Those with refugee status are uniquely allowed to access student support immediately—a privilege not afforded to UK nationals or those granted other forms of leave. There is a distinction in international law between such status and those in need of humanitarian protection.
Recently the Supreme Court upheld the Government’s policy of requiring most persons, including UK citizens, to be ordinarily lawfully resident in the UK for at least three years immediately prior to starting their course in order to be eligible for student support. That important rule establishes that generally the student has a solid connection with the UK before they are entitled to support and home fee rates. The second part of the amendment would, in effect, break that long-established policy by extending support to asylum seekers who have been granted temporary leave to remain only and who have only a recently established and potentially temporary connection to the UK. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central withdraw the motion.
Paul Blomfield
I am disappointed by the Government’s response. The Minister accurately described the position, which is that those who are granted refugee status gain eligibility from day one and those granted humanitarian protection have to wait three years. Until recently, the UK gave very few people humanitarian protection. The default option was refugee status. However, when the Government introduced the Syrian resettlement programme, they decided to give people five years’ humanitarian protection instead of refugee status, with the rights that that would previously have given them. The Government have never explained why. Humanitarian protection is usually given to those who do not quite meet the strict criteria of the refugee convention, but for whom it is not safe to return home. It cannot be the case that that applies to people brought here under the Government’s own programme for Syrian refugees.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the three-year rule not only holds up the educational progress of people who have often fled some of the most unimaginable situations but is no good for the UK? While their lives are on hold and they are unable to progress through education, they are not able to give something back, so this approach is self-defeating for the UK as well as for the individuals concerned.
Paul Blomfield
I very much agree: it is completely self-defeating. These are people who are going to make their lives here. The sooner they can start that process, the better. If it had not been for the Government’s move away from granting them refugee status, which in the past would have been the default norm, we would not be facing this problem.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Some of these young people have had their education disrupted, tragically, by the whole conflict situation, and the sooner they can get back into full-time education, the better—not only for them, but for us as a country.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not talking about very many people at all. It is a tiny number, but the opportunity to rebuild their lives after the tragedies they have lived through is extremely important to them.
Gordon Marsden
I place on record the Opposition’s support for my hon. Friend’s proposal and for the measured and dignified way in which he introduced it. I have no doubt that he could have cited a number of other harrowing stories. Does he share my distress at the Minister simply repeating what he said about leaving people in limbo, potentially for three years? Have the Minister and his officials nothing else to suggest to assist these young people to continue their education?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right. This limbo situation serves nobody. I would be happy to withdraw the new clause if the Minister could show us a different way forward that would address our concerns, but I am disappointed to hear the Government say simply that that limbo—that three-year delay, that position imposed on people simply because they have been given a technical classification of humanitarian protection rather than refugee status—is acceptable. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene to suggest any movement on the issue.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister is shaking his head. I therefore wish to press new clause 12 to a vote.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the Committee’s consideration. My final duty is to report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Joseph Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Hanson. My Department has today provided the Committee with an assessment of the implications of amendments made during Committee for the territorial extent and application of the Bill and for how it relates to the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations.
I also want to say that I am very pleased that the Bill has been scrutinised so thoroughly and in such a collegiate and generally good-humoured fashion. We sat a little late on Tuesday 11 October but adjourned early on Thursday 13 October and we have now completed the proceedings with four or five minutes to spare.
I thank Committee members personally for giving so much of their time and energy to the scrutiny of the Bill and for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate. We have been listening carefully to all the points made during the Bill’s passage through Committee and are grateful for all the observations, comments and proposed amendments, even if we were not able to accept all of them—
Joseph Johnson
Or indeed any.
We have had a robust and well informed consideration of every part of the Bill, and the Committee has been admirably steered by you, Mr Hanson, and by the other Chairs, particularly Sir Edward Leigh. I pay tribute to the usual channels for the way in which they have co-ordinated our work and ensured that there was proper time for us to scrutinise all the Bill’s provisions fully and carefully.
Lastly, I thank and recognise the hard work of Hansard in recording our deliberations; the Clerks for their advice throughout the Committee stage; and my very hard-working and brilliant officials in the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Last, but by no means least, I thank the Doorkeepers for helping to keep us all in good order.
Gordon Marsden
Further to that point of order, Mr Hanson. I associate myself and my hon. Friends with, if not all the Minister’s comments, certainly those in respect of you and your fellow Chairs. We had an appearance from Mr Christopher Chope as well as seeing Sir Edward, of course.
I pay tribute to the Public Bill Office. Members will know—or might want to take note, because one of these days they might be on the Opposition Benches—that, for the Opposition and Government, the progress of Bill Committees is often like David versus Goliath in terms of the resources available. The Public Bill Office have been scrupulously fair and helpful in that respect, so I pay tribute to its staff.
I also pay tribute to the fantastic contribution of all my hon. Friends among the Opposition and, indeed, to the contribution of the Scottish National party Members, which has been important. We have endeavoured to scrutinise you—not you, Mr Hanson, but the Government, within an inch of their nine lives. We will continue to do so as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
I associate myself with what the Minister said about the efficiency and efficacy of the usual channels. I will not be quoting Enoch Powell’s statement about the Whips. I particularly thank our colleagues from Hansard and the Doorkeepers.
The Chair
On behalf of Sir Edward Leigh, Mr Christopher Chope and myself, I thank colleagues for their good humour during the Committee. I particularly thank the Clerks who have supported the Committee, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Digital Economy Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Colleagues, today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before we start, I repeat that Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee meetings. Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode?
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. The Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate, and I will work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which the amendments are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list, and decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I hope that explanation is helpful.
We are still waiting for Mr Hancock, but we will continue. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debates on relevant amendments. [Interruption.] The Minister has arrived.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 11 October be amended as follows: in paragraph (1)(c), leave out the words “and 2.00 pm”.—(Matt Hancock.)
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We have no objection to the change, although I hope the Minister is a bit more punctual in future and takes more note of what the programme motion says, since we are supposed to start at 9.25 am and he has just arrived at 9.27 am.
The Chair
Thank you. This is not a flying start, colleagues. I am sure we can up our game as we move on. There will be no meeting of the Committee this afternoon. The Committee will next meet on Thursday at 11.30 am.
Clause 1
Universal service broadband obligations
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “the” insert “upload and download”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 83, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, after “services” insert “and mobile network coverage”.
Calum Kerr
I welcome the opportunity as a new boy in the Bill Committee process to go first. This is the first time I have spoken in this place with my jacket off.
We support the universal service obligation and think it is a positive move, but one of our concerns is the lack of detail on it. The document put out by the Government last week was welcome and provided more context. However, something that is continually missing when talking about speed is that speed is about not just download but upload. We are trying to make that more explicit. The amendment is a small word change, but it is required as we start to recognise what broadband and connectivity is all about. It is more than just the headline speed at which we can download at certain times of the day.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I rise to support amendment 83, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West and I, and amendment 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
All members of the Committee agree that we must do everything we can to ensure that individuals have access to superfast and, soon, ultrafast broadband. It is not only important but, in an ever more connected age, an absolute necessity for both businesses and residences. That is why we support the Government’s tacit aim to designate broadband effectively as a utility in the same way that water and energy are classed as a must-have in the modern world.
We will speak later about our concerns about the universal service obligation, but broadly we believe that there is coalition of support for a much more ambitious USO. That is why we were pleased to hear that the USO can be amended in secondary legislation later when it becomes outdated. However, I fear that, by the time it is introduced, it will already be becoming seriously outdated and, indeed, by 2020, it may feel like a relic of a bygone age when superfast and ultrafast broadband, even in rural areas, will be readily accessible. That is the subject of our new clause, which we will consider shortly.
On amendment 56, it is absolutely right to specify upload and download in the Bill. As we have seen all too often, businesses and residences see a particular speed advertised with no correlation between what they can download and upload. For someone with a business and working from home, accessing online services and transferring files to them can take a lot of time if the upload speed is not up to scratch. That is an obvious cost to businesses. It is not merely an irritant, but a loss in pounds and pence, and in productivity to the UK economy.
There is no mention in the Bill of upload speeds in the USO. That leads to a broader problem of lack of ambition throughout the Bill. Factors such as distance from the telephone exchange and other considerations such as old household wiring can slow down speed. That is why the USO, although welcome, will seem extraordinarily dated in just half a decade, when the roll-out of the USO will have been completed and there will be little appetite for providers or the Government to return to those hard-to-reach places for some time.
On tackling upload and download speeds, we would have preferred the USO to be under the superfast designations from the beginning. An example of the impact of superfast roll-out on one small business demonstrates this perfectly. Within the first year of having superfast broadband, the business reported a 30% increase in sales. We should be ambitious for our small businesses. Instead, this USO potentially condemns them to distinctly average speeds for a decade.
Amendment 83 is a probing amendment to test the Government’s ambition, which certainly needs to be tested throughout the Bill. It is based on a simple principle. We are at the start of a digital revolution that will transform how we work and how we communicate and interact with one another. Access to water and electricity in the home bookmarked our evolution to a more civilised society, so the essentials of the modern era should be similarly guaranteed. The Bill does that in part for broadband and we strongly believe it should cement further ways to roll out universal or near universal coverage for mobile communication.
We broadly support the changes to clause 2 and the amendments to the electronic communications code. Assisting mobile network operators in some of the challenges facing them is obviously important. That includes access to land and knocking down some of the absurd hurdles they must jump through to make what most people would consider sensible adjustments to infrastructure to update existing technology with little visual impact.
The Bill contains changes to a highly complex piece of legislation, which the industry has been seeking to change for some time. Indeed, the Law Commission commented that the legislation is not one of Parliament’s finest efforts. We recognise that. It clearly is not. However, although simplification and amendments to the code are important, there can be little doubt that mobile network operators will receive a substantial boon. That is why this amendment is so important and it is puzzling that the Government did not include it.
Evidence to the Committee suggested that the Bill could reduce the cost of site rental for mobile network operators, which make up a substantial portion of their costs at 40%. With the operators receiving effectively all they have asked for—no one blames them with such a complex and restrictive code—it is clear that our sights must be set firmly on delivery and the Government should not set their ambitions too low. That is what our probing amendment covers and why it is important that, during the passage of the Bill, we receive at least some commitment to improved targets on mobile network coverage.
We are slightly dismayed that the industry will benefit from such a clearly beneficial piece of legislation and that the Government will impose few or no conditions on them beyond what has already been agreed. We are aware that the £5 billion investment and the statutory target were tied to changes to the code, but we are not convinced that the benefits for consumers are greater than the benefits that are being approved for mobile network operators and we would certainly welcome greater reassurance on that from the Minister.
Let us look quickly at the targets set out in the binding agreement in 2014, signed by the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). They were: guaranteed voice and text coverage by each operator to 90% of the population and full coverage to 85% by 2017. Currently, only 46% of premises have access to 4G from all mobile network operators and a substantial 7% of the population—1.5 million homes nationwide—do not have basic voice or text coverage across the three networks.
The failed Mobile Infrastructure Project, supposed to reach the final notspots, closed in 2015-16. It had erected only 76 of 100 masts, leaving a substantial number of homes without the prospect of having complete voice and text coverage. Given that 71% of businesses rated mobile network access as “critical” or “very important” to their business we believe that mobile network coverage, as broadband is tacitly designated in this Bill, should also be considered a utility. That is what our probing amendment seeks to test.
Clearly, everyone in the country, if asked, would agree. Businesses that rely on mobile networks, local authorities and individuals that use them to communicate would welcome a right to have mobile network coverage within their place of work or at home. This is extremely achievable but the Opposition are concerned that institutional defensiveness from the major network operators is getting in the way of full or near universal coverage for consumers. More than 99% of residents in the UK have access to 2G or 3G of some kind and 90% have access to 4G of one kind. However, for all operators, the figure drops to just 46%.
The infrastructure is in place and it understandably infuriates people working in an office or at home when their colleagues can get network coverage and access to data services while they cannot. While we recognise the concerns around commercial incentive, surely it is right that, once the current phase of the roll-out is complete and significant gaps in full coverage across all mobile network providers still remain, we at least reconsider the case for national roaming and national infrastructure, as is commonplace on the continent.
We are a relatively small island and it should not be the case that commercial defensiveness makes the aspiration of near universal coverage far from a reality. That is why we will table another new clause relating to this part of the Bill to test it before the whole House. It will establish a review of the roll-out of mobile network coverage, which is a critical piece of infrastructure for businesses, residents, and emergency services. As yet, due to what appears to be institutional wrangling and commercial defensiveness, this coverage is not being extended to the entire population in a way they would expect.
As we know from evidence given to the Committee last week, currently more than 60% of communications towers globally are held in an entity separate from the networks that use them. The review will have to take another look at greater diversity in mobile infrastructure and national roaming in order to deliver a universal service. In countries such as the United States, the figure for independent infrastructure is more like 90%. In the United Kingdom, as the Committee knows, it is more likely that that infrastructure is erected on an economic case for the network and operated for the benefit of the network that makes the investment. That is fine up to a point, in that it undoubtedly encourages competition among network providers in areas where they can receive a substantial return, but it makes universal network coverage more difficult to achieve when there is 90% of coverage for 4G of some kind, but only 46% for all kinds.
Our review will also look at open data and how, by routinely publishing costs, location of masts, service quality and plans for roll-out, consumers, particularly in rural areas, but also in urban “nearly and notspots” can make better decisions about which network operator to use.
Throughout the Bill, Labour Members will look to the Government to turn the £l billion concession, however welcome, for the mobile industry into something approaching a near universal service for the country. We should be ambitious about the kind of mobile network coverage we can deliver and not shy away from the challenge.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
It is a pleasure to get going on the Bill proper and to respond to the first amendments. It is undoubtedly true that reliable fast broadband is now seen as the norm and not the nice-to-have—that unites the whole Committee. We are committed to ensuring that everyone can enjoy the benefits of decent broadband connectivity. It was in our manifesto and it is one of the core purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 56 seeks to ensure that the guidance around the characteristics of the connection is in the Bill—for instance, that the USO can include both upload and download speeds. I entirely understand the intent and the clause as drafted is sufficiently flexible to allow for that. The statement of intent that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk referred to, which was shared with the Committee last week, outlines a broad range of factors that need to be considered in designing the USO, including the level of service. That includes not just download and upload speeds, but the appropriateness and level of other parameters such as latency and capacity—and potentially customer service.
Ofcom has been commissioned to provide detailed technical analysis and recommendations to support decision making on the design of the broadband USO. Allowing Ofcom to do that work and ensuring that it is specified in detail is better than putting that on the face of the Bill, because it will allow us precisely to future-proof the design of the USO in the way that the hon. Gentleman demands. The decisions on the scope of the USO, the technical specifications, including download and upload speeds, and any service standards need to be taken in the light of Ofcom’s advice, which is to be provided by the end of this year, before the Bill concludes all its stages.
Amendment 83 seeks to include mobile coverage within the scope of the guidance on the broadband USO. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley made many good points and put them eloquently and powerfully. The position is that the universal service directive, which currently provides the regulatory framework for the broadband USO, is about the provision of a fixed internet connection of an appropriate speed to a fixed location. Depending on who is designated as the universal service provider or providers, and on the specification of the USO, there is scope for the USO connection to be provided using mobile technology. However, the directive does not require the USO to include mobile geographic coverage.
In any event, as the hon. Lady said, through the use of licence conditions we have delivered on a commitment to near universal mobile coverage. I would question, therefore, whether there is a case for a USO for mobile, because of those commitments. The licence obligations to which the hon. Lady correctly referred are part and parcel of a deal that included the reform to the electronic communications code—so everything that she asks for was covered in that deal. It is precisely because the two are linked that they are fair, both to the industry and, more importantly, to consumers. As she said, the mobile network operator roll-out plans provide for £5 billion of investment, as a result of that deal and commitment.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
When we talk about notspots, we are not just talking about parts of the highlands of Scotland. Indeed, parts of rural Cheshire, just a few miles from Chester, are not covered. Does the Minister honestly think that the deal he is talking about is working well?
Matt Hancock
The deal is to be delivered by the end of 2017. We will hold the MNO’s feet to the fire, because it has a legal and contractual requirement to deliver on that by the end of next year. I know the area of the country that the hon. Member talks about very well—it is where I spent the first 18 years of my life. There are some parts where the mobile signal is no better now than it was back then. In Suffolk this weekend, I found large swathes of my own constituency to be without a mobile signal, so I feel the hon. Gentleman’s pain. That is why delivery on this commitment by the MNOs is so important. The deal as agreed, which is a legally binding commitment, will result in nearly 100% of UK premises receiving 3G/4G data coverage, and 98% coverage to the UK landmass by the end of 2017.
That includes the new emergency services contract, which is being delivered by EE. That has to have a huge spread over the geography of the UK, and the same infrastructure will be available to customers of that provider. The deal sufficiently provides for the demands that were eloquently put by Opposition Front Benchers and, more importantly, clause 10 will enhance Ofcom’s powers to enforce the licence conditions, which we all agree are sensible, against the MNOs.
Calum Kerr
We welcome anything that increases mobile coverage commitments. The Government have done a deal with mobile operators for increased coverage, but the people who will pay for that increased coverage are the local authorities, the Forestry Commission and the landowners—they will suddenly find their rents drop through the floor to nothing. The Government could have revisited the annual licence fees that they collect from the mobile operators and done a deal on that basis, rather than making someone else pay for the increased coverage.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman leaps ahead to the next clause, and no doubt we will have that debate, but I think it is entirely fair for landowners and those on whose land the infrastructure is provided to get a similar return on the value of the land to them, rather than on the value once the land has this infrastructure. That is the change that we will be making because, ultimately, we have put in place a deal to get better service for customers, to get more geographic coverage and to reduce the costs of rolling that out, which is the right deal for the country.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley calls for exactly what is to be delivered and as there are other clauses in the Bill to ensure that that delivery happens, I hope that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk will withdraw his amendment.
Calum Kerr
I am willing to withdraw the amendment because the document that came out last week provides a level of clarity. There remains a concern that the Bill is light and passes off the detail, which is both an opportunity and disconcerting. This is an opportunity to do something transformational with broadband, but the Bill is not transformational in itself. It will come down to the detail. We were keen to see more specific clarification in the document, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Calum Kerr
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) In subsection (4) after “OFCOM” insert “, the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Procurement process—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure an open procurement process is held in respect of the allocation of the universal service order.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint a body to undertake an alternative dispute resolution role to arbitrate in instances of disagreement over designation.”
Calum Kerr
We have discussed the USO and what it could mean, particularly in last week’s evidence sessions, but there is an opportunity to go further. If the USO is simply passed over to BT because it is willing to provide 10 megabits to everybody by 2020, I am afraid that 10 megabits will be the ceiling rather than the floor. We should be considering how we facilitate a USO that empowers communities and devolved Administrations to go further. The Scottish Government have made a commitment to reach 30 megabits over the course of the Parliament, by 2021, and a flexible USO—particularly a voucher scheme, rather than a monetary or contractual agreement with the likes of BT—could help them to deliver.
Through our amendment we seek to ensure proper consultation and the involvement of not only the Scottish Government but all the devolved Administrations. Previous dialogue has been largely tokenistic, so we need to set it out in the Bill and insist that there is proper consultation that empowers the regions of the UK to take the USO as a platform, as a floor of their ambition, rather than as a ceiling.
Louise Haigh
New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that there is a completely open procurement process, and an alternative dispute resolution role to arbitrate in instances of disagreement over the designation.
We welcome the Minister’s clarification last Wednesday about the statement of intent in relation to the USO. However, we want to mention—I am sure it will not be the first time in this Committee—how rushed and unsatisfactory the publication of Bill documents has been. Some of the documents that should accompany the Bill are yet to be published. I know from talking to people in the industry that that is their concern as well.
I was pleased to note from the statement of intent that the Minister intends the USO to act as an effective complement to commercial, community and publicly-funded roll-outs of broadband, and that it will not displace any planned roll-out of higher speed broadband. There is an argument that there should be a combination of the USO and Broadband Delivery UK to fulfil the last 5%, given that the work of BDUK is still ongoing.
The industry has raised concerns that a USO could risk distorting the UK’s broadband market and potentially hamper the goal of universally available good quality broadband access, if it is not designed in the right way, with the industry and consumers in mind. I note what the Minister said earlier about Ofcom’s being better situated for future-proofing, and I agree. I will discuss that on clause 1 stand part if that is acceptable, Mr Streeter. It is important that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of Ofcom’s role in the consultation.
The USO should not displace any planned roll-out of higher speed broadband. I mentioned the industry’s concerns that it could distort the UK broadband market. If it is done badly, there is a risk that it will undermine commercial investment, in hard-to-reach areas where industry is able profitably to deliver good quality broadband at competitive prices, or by passing on to existing users any rising costs that come about as a result of the USO.
For example, TechUK has argued that the Government should strictly limit the USO to the most remote areas of the UK. Failure to limit the availability of a USO tightly means there is a risk that commercial investment will be diverted, and that there will be wasteful intervention. It is suggested that urban areas, and any rural areas where there is a prospect of market investment, should be explicitly excluded from the USO. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that and on how Ofcom will take forward the consultation.
Furthermore, satellite connectivity should be considered in scope for the most remote households. It is already available to virtually all households in the UK, and it can be the most cost-effective route to providing superfast broadband. Essentially, we believe—and I hope that this is the Government’s intention—that the USO should be seen as a safety net to prevent social exclusion, facilitate access to online public services, and encourage social and economic development.
The question is whether we need a more transparent and competitive regime for that to happen. Smaller providers are currently put off, because they do not know whether BT currently has plans for, or is working in, any place at any given time. There are allegations from other players in the industry that when smaller providers move into areas where BT is not investing or working, it swoops in, purely to crowd out the competition.
The Government’s statement of intent cites thinkbroadband estimates that suggest about 4% of premises are unable to receive speeds above 10 megabits per second. That really should be open data available to the public and all service providers. We clearly need to know where the assets are, who can do the work and where the cabinets are. There should be a register that contains all that information and is available to make the market more competitive and efficient.
For the process to be trusted, transparent and fair, all the information should be in the open and part of the procurement process, allowing as many providers as possible to participate to ensure that the playing field is as level as possible. It was therefore also welcome that the Government’s statement of intent included consideration of different types of providers, such as regional providers and smaller ones using innovative technologies.
Clearly, it was less than desirable that the BDUK process ended up with only one contractor. We do not believe that we can lay the blame for that entirely on the design of the contracting process, but we think that much greater care needs to be given in the future to ensuring that a richer diversity of providers is catered for in the process.
We should also ensure that the Government are not effectively blackmailed by providers to protect their market position. The mess-up around the procurement process for the roll-out of the broadband framework in 2012 left BT as the only supplier, after Fujitsu pulled out. That was condemned by the Public Accounts Committee for failing to deliver meaningful competition or value for money.
It is also important that the Government consider different tenders for the different problems we are faced with in the last few per cent. For example, we could have one contractor for the rural areas and another for the inner-city areas, as they obviously present different challenges. We could do with some further clarity from the Minister on that.
The amendment is merely designed to be probing. Does the Minister genuinely envisage that anyone other than BT will implement the universal service obligation? How will the tender process be designed? Given the Government’s commitment to encouraging SMEs and community providers to tender, will the likes of Broadband for the Rural North be considered? If the Minister can provide some clarity on that either now or later in writing, I will not press the new clause to a vote.
Matt Hancock
I will try to respond to all the points as briefly as I can, because the hon. Lady in particular raised a huge number of pertinent points. The two Front Bench teams are very much on the same side on this matter, so I want to give her the reassurance I can, but as quickly as I can, given that she asked a huge number of very good questions.
First, amendment 57 is about ensuring that devolved Administrations are consulted. Section 65(4) of the Communications Act 2003 already imposes a requirement to consult with Ofcom and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Since the broadband USO is an extremely important consumer measure that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom, I cannot conceive of a situation where the devolved Administrations would not be consulted as plans to introduce a broadband USO are put in place, so I do not think the amendment is necessary. We would expect wide and extensive consultation across a wide cross-section of stakeholders.
We will consult on proposals for secondary legislation once we have considered Ofcom’s report. The second consultation will cover the detail of the USO and provide an opportunity to comment on the design of the USO and how it is implemented. I hope that that takes into account the concerns of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that there is an open procurement process for the designation of universal service providers. Again, that is covered under section 66 of the 2003 Act, which enables Ofcom to set out the procedure for designation in regulations and requires that the procedure
“be efficient, objective and transparent; and…not to involve, or to tend to give rise to, any undue discrimination against any person”.
I think that addresses the concerns as directly set out in the new clause.
It was music to my ears to hear a Labour Front Bencher talk about the need for a competitive regime, which clearly puts her at odds with her leadership. I agree in principle that the USO is designed as a safety net. Some people want much greater broadband speeds and connectivity, and it is not unreasonable for people to pay if they want very high connectivity speeds, but we believe there is a public service in having a universal service so that everyone is given the opportunity to have decent connectivity on which to live their lives. As the hon. Lady said, that could involve communicating with the Government, which is increasingly done online, or engaging in communications around healthcare and basic banking, and 10 megabits per second allows for that.
The hon. Lady mentioned satellite technology. Satellite is in scope—in fact, all technologies are in scope. The legislation is purposely designed to be technology blind. What people care about is connectivity. The technology is for the implementation, the policy makers and the engineers. Citizens care about how good, reliable and quick their connectivity is.
The hon. Lady made one error and I want to bring her up to speed. It is not true that there is just one contract in BDUK. Its open competitions have now been won by BT, Gigaclear, Call Flow Solutions, Airband, UK Broadband and Cotswolds Broadband. There has been progress since the Public Accounts Committee report that she mentioned and a whole plethora of providers have now successfully bid into the BDUK contracts.
Louise Haigh
I am aware that in phase 2 other providers have been successful in tendering, but in phase 1, as the Minister is well aware, there were problems and Fujitsu pulled out, leaving BT as the only contractor. That is why our new clause goes further than the law currently enables Ofcom to go, by ensuring the appointment of a body to undertake an alternative dispute resolution role, so that we can learn the lessons from BDUK. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to commit to that today, but will he at least take it away and consider it for the USO?
Matt Hancock
I think that those lessons were learned about three or four years ago, so I do not think that the new clause is needed. That is why, in the second phase of the BDUK contracts, we managed to succeed in getting six different providers to bid successfully, precisely because we learned the lessons from what I agree was an unsatisfactory outcome of the first contract. So the hon. Lady is right; it is just that I think that that work has been done and so it is not necessary to legislate on it.
The hon. Lady also made the point about open data on where cabinets have been put in place and part-fibre broadband or superfast broadband has been delivered. BT has given me a commitment that it will make those data openly available. I have yet to see them, but I look forward very much to their being made public very soon; I was given that commitment some weeks ago by BT and I am surprised that they are not yet public. I will take that up with BT immediately after this—I wonder whether it might have heard what I have just said.
Given those assurances both on consultation with the devolved Administrations and on delivery of a competitive regime, with distortions to competition taken into account by Ofcom, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw or not press the amendments.
Calum Kerr
I thank the Minister for his words and I take on board his comments, but I will not withdraw the amendment. The challenge is the degree to which consultation is effective and actually feeds into the process. I know from personal experience, having met Ofcom and spoken to the Scottish Government, that much of the engagement to date between the Scottish Government and Ofcom on areas such as the USO has been tokenistic. It needs to go much further.
I have myself facilitated a workshop with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Futures Trust and Ofcom. Sharon White has met Fergus Ewing, the Minister responsible for these matters in Scotland. I think that we have to be far more explicit in legislation, because that will ensure not just a tokenistic consultation but proper engagement in the process so that in areas where the Scottish Government have set a higher target—30 megabits, superfast, for 100% of the Scottish population—the USO is designed in a way that supports and helps that. If it is done in a UK-wide, pragmatic sense, that will not help, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Calum Kerr
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, leave out “The Secretary of State may” and insert—
“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall”.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 59, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) The report shall consider the comparative costs of introducing the universal service order in rural and urban areas, and identify measures to ensure costs in rural areas are not disproportionately higher than in urban areas.”
Amendment 82, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“72B Universal service order: annual report
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report about the implementation of the universal service order for all areas pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
(2) The annual report must include information on—
(a) the number of premises that have been supplied with the minimum download speed as specified in the USO secondary legislation
(b) the number of premises that have been required to cover some of the cost of connection,
(c) of the premises in (b) the average cost of connection per premises covered by residents, disaggregated by local authority area,
(d) the number of premises that have chosen not to be connected via the universal service order after being provided with an estimate, and
(e) the amount of time on average it takes to provide an estimate and connect a premise, disaggregated by local authority area.
(3) The annual report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after 31 March each year.”
New clause 9—Review of broadband delivery UK—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of the delivery of superfast broadband by Broadband Delivery UK.
(2) The evaluation under subsection (1) shall consider—
(a) The financial impact on customers of a single provider delivering superfast broadband;
(b) Value-for-money for the taxpayer, and
(c) Competition in the delivery of superfast broadband.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament by 1 July 2018.”
Calum Kerr
That Division was rather exciting; it woke everybody up and got them away from their iPhones and iPads.
Inevitably, the focus of this first part of the Bill is on the USO, trying to make it fit for purpose and ensuring that we get the outcome that I believe we all want: better connectivity all across the country.
Amendments 58 and 59 would put into the Bill something ensuring a proper evaluation of how this USO is implemented and how it is borne out. There is a real concern that, as I have heard, the USO could follow similar lines to the telephony USO. If we remember what the telephony USO is, people have the right to demand a phone line up to a certain cost; I think it is £3,400, but I stand to be corrected if that is wrong. Thereafter, they pay the difference.
If we really mean universal broadband, what we must not have is a scenario whereby, although there is a USO, people in rural areas still end up paying more for a lesser service, which is what we have today. I am sure that we have all had complaints from constituents that, “I pay the same amount per month as someone else in an urban area for an on-the-surface 10 meg service, but I get only 1.5 or 2 meg.”
Let us accept that that is the reality on the ground—that people pay different amounts for different levels of service—but let us also put something in the Bill that actually means that stock is taken and a review is conducted. It should seek to ensure that in the future such problems do not happen and that people in rural areas—in fact, any people with a poor broadband service—get a fair speed with a fair price and all the other measures that the Government are introducing, as a result of the USO.
I should say at this point that we also support amendment 82, which puts rather more meat on those bones that I have just outlined.
Louise Haigh
We have had quite an exciting start to the Committee. The Minister turned up late; one Government Member went astray; and we nearly had a Government rebellion from the new PPS in the voting. [Laughter.] I hope that we continue in this vein. I also hope that the Minister is sensitive with his brand new PPS; I hope that she is not up for the chop this early in their relationship.
I will speak to amendment 82 and new clause 9, which would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament on progress of the USO and to commission an independent review of the progress of BDUK respectively. As we have said, we very much welcome the USO. It could be somewhat more ambitious and it should extend to mobile, but we believe that it is an important step in the right direction. The purpose of these amendments is for Parliament to be kept abreast of progress, both on the USO and on the continued roll-out by BDUK.
Clearly, there have been issues with the roll-out of BDUK, not least the fact that, as we have just discussed, BT was the sole beneficiary of the contract in phase 1. If we are to avoid a repeat of that, we need to ensure not only that the procurement process is right but that Parliament takes a proper oversight role in assessing the performance and whether it is on target.
For example, we heard on multiple occasions last week about the problems around the fact that business parks have not been connected to superfast broadband, let alone ultrafast broadband. Similarly, we have heard of issues around local authorities being threatened with legal action should they so much as discuss procurement with a supplier other than the official one.
MPs’ mailbags are full of correspondence on issues about Openreach and about broadband more generally, so it is only right that they should have full disclosure on progress on an annual basis.
The first phase of the procurement process for BDUK included a mandatory requirement for copper local loop access rather than fibre, which meant old and outdated technology was being used and paid for with taxpayers’ money, entrenching the problems with existing infrastructure and holding back the future-proofing of the network.
There was also a requirement in that procurement process for the use of open access networks, which are the slowest option available, as opposed to local access networks which are much faster. It is good to see Ofcom consulting on the design of the USO over the next couple of months, and I am sure that they will learn from these mistakes. It is vital that this process is as transparent as possible, to ensure the best structure and outcome for consumers across the country.
On Second Reading the Minister called on Members to promote the take-up of broadband in areas where BDUK is providing access to broadband, so that local communities could benefit from the gainshare. That is absolutely right, and I am confident that relevant Members will be doing just that, but what are the Government doing to promote this? Are they, for example, paying for advertising and promotional materials? Is the Minister confident that access is the same as capacity, and that there is sufficient capacity in the cabinets in those areas where BDUK has been rolled out to allow take-up?
A very compelling case was put forward on Second Reading by the hon. Member for North Swindon, who described the problems he had with his local council and the lack of availability for his constituents even after BT had ticked all the boxes in that area under the BDUK contract. It seems to us that common sense dictates that BDUK should be measured on take-up rather than simply access to broadband. This is so that areas can be assured of their return from the gainshare, and also so that we can be absolutely sure that residents are able to use the broadband in practice rather than having access to it only in theory.
It is also important that we have a review of the progress of BDUK to consider whether they should be given any further direction or powers in relation to accessing land or infrastructure, for example. The statement of intent published last week references the question of how often, and on what basis, a USO may need to be reviewed. Again, we would have liked to see that in the Bill. I hope we can have clarity from the Minister on that because, as we all know, the minimum speed and quality of access that we all require are travelling in one direction only and at an exponential rate. It is difficult to imagine that 10 megabits will still be considered acceptable in 2020, let alone 2025, given that superfast is now defined as 24 megabits. The European Commission is hoping to set a new target for broadband and mobile coverage, which will aim to ensure that all European households can get a minimum internet download speed of 100 megabits per second by 2025.
The existing digital agenda for Europe programme currently seeks to ensure that every home in the EU can access a 30 megabits-plus capable, next generation access, superfast broadband connection, with 50% subscribed to a 100 megabits-plus service by the year 2020. At present it is widely expected that BT’s commercial G.fast roll-out, which will commence from next summer, and Virgin Media’s ongoing cable network expansion should bring broadband speeds of around 100 to 300 megabits to most of the UK, around 60% to 70%.
Calum Kerr
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. The EU, which has apparently been holding us back for so long, is now leaving us behind as they run off to 100 megabits by 2025 while we set our ambition at 10 megabits by 2020. That is an excellent point. It comes back to the critical importance of how this USO is designed. Simply allowing BT to continue with more of the same, stretching their copper assets further, is not going to hit the long-term vision that is required. That is what this Government need to do. They need to set a target for fibre. I hope that when the Minister speaks tomorrow morning at the broadband convention he will say more about that, because we need to show far more ambition.
Louise Haigh
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. Several issues relating to our withdrawal from the European Union will affect not only the measures in the Bill—particularly on spectrum divergence—but the UK digital economy as a whole. I know that the industry is extremely concerned about the implications of Brexit.
BT has also promised to extend G.fast to most UK homes by 2025, but this is unlikely to push the overall coverage figure much beyond 60% to 70% as by then Virgin Media will have already been able to deliver into much of the same areas. That goes to the point made by the hon. Gentleman, because it leaves the final third who are still out of the loop. On top of that, 5G-based mobile broadband should also be able to deliver 100 megabits-plus, and that will play a role, although mobile performance is notoriously variable and delivers much slower speeds outside urban areas. Once again, the challenge will be to bring ultrafast speeds to the final third, which would probably require a repeat of the Broadband Delivery UK programme, albeit with G.fast instead of VDSL as the main technology, and another round of public funding. That is why we need those commitments to fibre and other technologies. The former Digital Economy Minister has already hinted at that.
Christian Matheson
It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair this morning, Mr Streeter. May I also say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister for Digital and Culture. I think it is the first time we have served together. He is of course a Cheshire man like me, and we are all very proud of him in Cheshire. Indeed, when I met headmaster Chris Ramsay of King’s school recently, he asked me to urge the right hon. Gentleman to come back and visit his alma mater. I encourage him to do so, though he might not want to do any political campaigning while he is there.
I rise in support of amendment 82 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley. It is absolutely right that what is becoming a piece of essential national infrastructure, and one which is developing all the time, should come under the purview of Parliament. My view on the roll-out of broadband, which is not shared by all hon. Members, is that BT has done a very good job of getting a decent proportion of the country up to a decent standard fairly quickly, using existing infrastructure. However, as we have seen, the continued reliance on copper local links can hold back the development of that infrastructure. There has been very little scrutiny of that infrastructure development in Parliament. It is good to see my fellow members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Members for Mid Worcestershire and for Selby and Ainsty, in this Committee. Our Select Committee’s report was one of the few areas where Parliament has been able to scrutinise the development of broadband, and scrutinise we did, strictly and fairly, as I am sure the hon. Gentlemen would agree.
Calum Kerr
I feel somewhat left out because the hon. Gentleman does not know where I went to school, but never mind. He is making an excellent speech on this whole area of BT and its contract. I agree with him. It is very easy to kick BT, but it is delivering on its contract and what it has been asked to do. Does he agree with me, though, that as we set a 10 megabits objective, it is important also to consider the future, because if BT continues to sweat copper assets we are going to come unstuck at some point. Simply going for now and not thinking about tomorrow is too short-sighted and it is catching up with us already.
Christian Matheson
I absolutely agree with that suggestion. BT has used copper assets well to manage to get a large proportion of the country up to a decent standard quickly. The Minister made a good point in the evidence sessions when he challenged the BT director of strategy on the number of premises that were connected to fibre, by suggesting that in fact those premises were all connected not by fibre, but by copper loop to a box that was connected by fibre. The Minister was absolutely right to make that proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley made an extremely valuable point about the controversies that continue within the telecoms industry. It is not an industry that sits comfortably with itself; everyone seems to be at each other’s throats. There is competition, there is healthy competition and there are outright dog-eat-dog hostilities. I wonder whether they fight too much among themselves and take their eyes off the ball when it comes to serving the consumer. A proper, annual parliamentary process that can focus the attention of the industry, as well as of Ministers, and give Parliament the chance to consider how this important and critical piece of national infrastructure is rolling out would be extremely valuable. To quote the Minister, it would hold the industry’s feet to the fire annually.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is right: we should not be limiting our ambition. The amendment proposes an annual review to see how far we can take our ambition in the forthcoming period. I hope to see—as the hon. Gentleman suggests—a roll-out of fibre to premises as the baseline standard in coming years. The one concern I have about the industry, which the amendment touches on, is that we will be driving forward with higher capacity and capability standards across 80% of the country, but those areas that are currently notspots will remain notspots. I hope that will be covered by other parts of the Bill, and that the Minister will address that. This amendment, though, will focus the attention of the industry on delivery by requiring it to report annually to Parliament via Ministers and via Ofcom. We can see who is delivering and who is not, and why not. It is an excellent amendment, and I am pleased to support my hon. Friend.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I sympathise with many of the things that the hon. Member for the City of Chester has said. I cannot promise that I will not visit during a political campaign, because it is a seat I would like to see returned to the fold, despite his good efforts.
While I understand the spirit in which amendment 82 and new clause 9 have been tabled, I reject their premise. We heard clearly in the evidence sessions what is wrong with the Government—and, indeed, one provider—trying to over-specify and push out a solution. I know from my own constituency that, although there has been decent progress, it has not gone far enough—I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. There are specific communities—for instance Shalbourne, a beautiful village—where there are insoluble notspots. These houses seem unable to be connected to the exchange because they connect to a Hampshire exchange, not a Wiltshire one, so all the good work Wiltshire council has done putting in local taxpayers’ money and working with BT Openreach is of no benefit whatsoever to those constituents. In Worton, where we actually had the discussion with BT, there is a dividing line right down a street: some houses are connected and some are not. We all know that that is increasingly very bad for house prices and really does affect people’s mindset when they move into the constituency. In my area, the Lydeway business park, which includes a very fine farm shop and other small businesses, is desperate to get better broadband connectivity, but we cannot seem to get it.
We heard from TalkTalk and other witnesses that the job is not to specify what the solution should look like and have lots of arduous burdens on Government to report back, but to empower consumers to say, “Let’s go out and talk to Gigaclear.” Or we could look at what has been done in a part of Cumbria, represented by one of my hon. Friends, where communities have come together, worked with farmers to waive fees for crossing land and come up with a community-led solution.
Empowering consumers, as the Bill will do, would enable them to demand a legal right to a decent level of broadband connectivity. I accept that 10 megabits per second is an aspiration for many premises already—they do not get anything like it—and I completely accept the point that that may not be enough in future.
We also heard in the witness sessions that technology in terms of compressing more and more data and information down existing fibre or copper is improving all the time. It might actually be sufficient for some families. I have managed to upgrade with the cabinet in Upavon to about 15 down and 10 up. It is nowhere near enough when all the kids are home and they are on Netflix and other things but it is not bad. If I yell at them loudly enough to get off the wi-fi, I can actually get my constituency work done, albeit from home.
I contrast that with what it was like before when, if the hamsters pedalled fast enough, I might have been able to send one email an hour. It is a massive improvement to productivity in the Perry household.
Calum Kerr
I hope the hon. Lady would not yell at me to get off the wi-fi. She is making some good points but I would try to draw her back to the substance of the amendments. There is no focus on technology. We want to ensure that the USO is delivering for all our constituents. All we want is a review to monitor progress and ensure that the design is fit for purpose. It is not about technology so I urge the hon. Lady to think again.
Claire Perry
I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I did sit until recently on the inter-ministerial Committee looking at how to upgrade the digital services right across the country.
It is clear that Ofcom is taking its responsibilities very seriously, both to report on the number of premises that are connected and to tighten up on some of the issues where broadband companies advertise the maximum speed a customer might ever get if connected rather than the average speed. Ofcom is a very good regulator under Ms White’s chairmanship and it is absolutely stepping up to the plate.
I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment or the new clause because they are stuck in the past, looking at how we push out a good solution rather than empowering consumers to pull through the best solution that works for them. That solution might look very different in my constituency of Devizes from how it might in Cheshire or the highlands of Scotland. We have made decent progress but it is not far enough. I applaud the Government for bringing forward both the USO as an underlying obligation and the flexibility to amend that as technology changes.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I rise to support the amendments under discussion and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley for an excellent speech and for leading the debate, particularly on amendment 82.
I want to ask this of the Committee. Do we want to be ambitious? For me, this is about ambition. Do we want an economy that has the nuts and bolts, the things we require, to make it fit for the 21st century and the challenges it is already throwing up? Do we want our tech and creative industries, such as those that operate in my constituency of Bristol West, to be able to perform their functions, or do we want them to move away?
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I hope the hon. Lady does not mean to talk down the UK digital success story of 12.4% of GDP. I am sure she is aware that that is the largest in the G20 and compares with a European average of just 5.7%. We need to keep the progress going but we already have huge achievements, have we not?
Thangam Debbonaire
Yes, of course, I agree but I do not want that to slow down. I am ambitious because of that record and want it to continue, if possible, at an exponential rate of growth. Having such a low level of ambition in the USO will, I think, hold back the success stories that the hon. Gentleman so rightly talks about and that I have in my constituency. The medical and university sectors and researchers throughout industry all say to me that the issue is both upload and download speeds, as well as ensuring that they can compete with their competitors in Europe and beyond. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, the European ambition is for 100 megabits per second—10 megabits is just a fraction of that.
Claire Perry
If the hon. Lady knows my beautiful constituency, she is always welcome to come and have a cup of coffee and admire it. The last time it was anything other than Conservative was 1921, so she is welcome to visit but not to campaign. Surely she, like me, welcomes Wiltshire Council’s commitment of taxpayers’ money to the programme and the fact that 91% of premises have now been passed by the BT programme. We are not there yet, but we have made enormous progress.
The Chair
Although the Committee is going really well and everyone is doing great, we are now straying slightly into Second Reading territory. Let us keep our comments focused on the amendments and new clause in hand and we will all get along swimmingly.
Thangam Debbonaire
Thank you, Mr Streeter. I do not have much else to say, but I say to the hon. Lady that I do indeed know her constituency well because one of my sisters was born in Devizes. She mentions 91% and Wiltshire Council’s excellent commitment, but what about the other 9%?
Before I sit down, I refer briefly to what Vodafone’s Paul Morris said in one of the oral evidence sessions last week. He said:
“I do not think that 10 megabits is enough for most small businesses”.––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 16, Q26.]
If it is not enough—if a telecoms provider acknowledges that it is not enough, and if tech companies in the creative industries and others in my constituency are telling me that it is not enough—I do not understand what would be so wrong with having an annual report to measure how we are doing. I thank you for allowing me the time to make that point, Mr Streeter, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Before I make a brief remark, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I fully support the spirit of the amendments and new clause, but I am not entirely sure whether the Committee should support it. Surely it is the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s job to hold BDUK and the Department to account for their progress. I told you I would be brief, Mr Streeter.
Matt Hancock
We have had support of spirit throughout this sitting. The amendments and the new clause are all about reviews of and reports on progress. I have reviewed my broadband this weekend, and I can report that while I was looking at myself discussing the importance of broadband in East Anglia on a local TV programme, I was actually under my desk because my broadband went down. I know how frustrating it is when one’s broadband goes wrong. I am very grateful to the BT engineers who are working to fix it right now. That is my report.
The best comment was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty about the Select Committee. Reports and reviews are important, but the Select Committee is there to ensure that Parliament has its say. More than that, as Ofcom carries out its consultations, it will of course report on progress.
I wish to pick up on a few of the comments that were made. The hon. Member for City of Chester, which is a great city and the city of my birth—the Bill is all about connectivity and we have been making all sorts of connections in this sitting—made the argument very strongly for the importance of not only getting better connectivity, but describing it right. I will have no truck with people who say they are providing a fibre solution when, in fact, it is a part-fibre solution. Fibre-to-the-cabinet is not fibre and anybody who says so is taking people for fools. We should talk about fibre when we mean a full fibre connection that goes all the way from the fibre backbone into the premises. Anything short of that is merely part-fibre.
That point demonstrated some of the confusion from Opposition Front Benchers and shows why it is so important to get these things right, instead of just calling for a report when that is already going to happen. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley called for use of G.fast, which is an important interim technology. However, she then said, “and therefore, it is important we have more fibre.” G.fast is not a fibre technology; it is a copper-based technology. While it is important and useful interim technology that will undoubtedly increase speeds, it is not full fibre.
Calum Kerr
The Minister is slightly taking liberties there. The reality is that G.fast is distance-constrained to about 300 to 400 metres, so fibre will have to be pushed much further. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley is aware of at. It comes ack to the same principles: we need more ambition and we need to push fibre further. Yes, G.fast will have a place, but it will not fix my or my colleagues’ rural challenges.
Matt Hancock
Exactly, absolutely right. We are seeing the long-feared Labour-SNP alliance in action. The hon. Gentleman is right that G.fast is a useful technology but it is not a full fibre technology and is, by physics, distance-constrained, although BT continues to do important work on driving as much delivery out of copper as possible.
There is one other point that it is important for the Committee to consider: there was a simultaneous call from the Opposition for the statement of intent to be included in the Bill and for there to be flexibility in the speed of the USO. These two things are inconsistent; it takes time to change primary legislation. It is incredibly important that we can revise the USO potentially—and hopefully—upwards. It is wrong to set a USO speed now for several years hence. I think we agree on that. We should not, therefore, put the speed on the face of the Bill.
The Scottish Government have said they want 30 megabits per second by 2021. We, of course, want the USO before then and we want the speed to reflect the reality of the time. Demands are increasing very quickly, so I would not want to put a figure on it for five years hence, as the Scottish Government have done. That is a mistake and it is far better to do it as we are planning in this Bill.
Louise Haigh
The Minister is slightly misinterpreting what I said, which is particularly cruel given that I have only been a week in the job. I did not say G.fast was equivalent to fibre. I said that BT would be pushing it out to 60% to 70% and that was why we need much more ambitious targets from the Government on fibre for that final third, in order to deliver coverage for the entire UK.
With regard to the statement of intent, I have said several times that we support its being in secondary legislation, but we want to see elements of it, including the design of the USO, the procurement process and review, to be in the Bill, to avoid being asked to vote blindly on details we do not yet have.
Matt Hancock
I am delighted to have that clarification. I am also glad that the hon. Lady welcomed the fact that Ofcom is doing the consultation, which is necessary before we can put those details in place. The way the provisions are structured in the Bill is the right way to proceed.
In ensuring that we get the best possible broadband connectivity, we must make sure that we have both a vision of the future with high-speed and superfast—and then ultrafast—connectivity, and flexibility to get there in the most cost-efficient way possible. That unites the Committee in purpose, and the Bill as it stands provides for it.
Finally, following the mention of the Labour Government by the Opposition, I will not rise to any partisan points other than to note that in 2003, the then Labour Government legislated to set a USO. They set the USO in stone in legislation and instead of including a review clause, they set it at 28 kilobits per second. Let that be a lesson to anyone who wants to put more on the face of the Bill. It is far better to ensure that we can constantly keep pace with technology, as the Bill does.
Calum Kerr
I am enjoying this; the debate is getting a little more spirited. I hope that some Government Committee members will vote the wrong way for their party and the right way for the people of this country and their connectivity. We are not advocating that a figure is put in the Bill. At no point have we suggested that. We have been advocating greater ambition and a desire to ensure that the USO is designed and rolled out to meet the demands of our constituents and the expectations of the country. Unless the Minister or anyone else can tell me that this place is particularly good at doing perfect legislation that always gets the desired outcome, it seems eminently sensible that we put in place a review process. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and instead support amendment 82.
Louise Haigh
We have heard support for the spirit of the amendment and for the Select Committee to review the progress of the USO. The amendment certainly does not specify to which element of Parliament the report should go. We would be satisfied with progress being reported to the Select Committee. Government Committee members will be interested in, and their mailbags will be full of concerns on the progress of the USO, so they should have the ability to review that. Also, I was not old enough to vote in 2003, so I do not think I can be held responsible for decisions made then.
Calum Kerr
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 82, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“72B Universal service order: annual report
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report about the implementation of the universal service order for all areas pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
(2) The annual report must include information on—
(a) the number of premises that have been supplied with the minimum download speed as specified in the USO secondary legislation
(b) the number of premises that have been required to cover some of the cost of connection,
(c) of the premises in (b) the average cost of connection per premises covered by residents, disaggregated by local authority area,
(d) the number of premises that have chosen not to be connected via the universal service order after being provided with an estimate, and
(e) the amount of time on average it takes to provide an estimate and connect a premise, disaggregated by local authority area.
(3) The annual report must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after 31 March each year.”—(Louise Haigh.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Louise Haigh
I know that we covered this issue on Second Reading, but I was not the shadow Minister at the time. This legislation is not a Bill for the digital economy. The tech sector has been waiting for some time for the Government’s digital strategy and vision for this crucial area of our economy; to say that it is disappointed with the lack of ambition and strategic direction in the Bill would be a gross understatement.
We heard a damning indictment from one witness last week. He described his business as a tech start-up in Canary Wharf, and said that the Bill would do absolutely nothing to help it. To call it the “Digital Economy Bill” is quite insulting given that it is actually a collection of disparate measures—a mixture of amendments from across a range of Departments vaguely tied together using the word “digital”. Over the next few sittings we will focus on where the Bill could be improved, and I am sure that on Report we will return to what the Bill requires if it is genuinely to aid, boost and improve the digital economy.
On clause 1, we need to do much more than produce a mere headline USO. If we are talking about access to digital services, what are we prepared to do to support that access? Does that support simply cover subsidies on infrastructure in more remote areas, or should it also cover education? If it is more than just enabling access, we need to make sure digital skills and knowledge are embedded in our education system as well as providing for the older generation.
Similarly, as we discussed earlier, we need to think beyond mere access and ask ourselves what sort of targets we want on usage. What goals follow the strategy of the USO? It is brilliant if everyone has 10 megabits per second, but how many people are able to use the internet? How many young people are studying IT or related classes? What percentage of the workforce are in technical-related roles? The fact is that not only is the USO unambiguous, but it is long overdue. As I said earlier, Labour left fully costed plans to deliver superfast by 2012.
In 50% of rural premises the infrastructure is simply not there to carry more than 10 megabits, and for one in five premises it will not carry more than 5 megabits. It was suggested to us by a couple of witnesses that the USO was simply in line with BT’s proposed business plan. The chief executive of BT confirmed this to us: they can implement the USO by 2020 without any further public money, with 24 megabits to 97% or 98% of the country, fixed broadband of 10 megabits to 99%, and the last 1% likely to be done by 4G or satellite. The question is, therefore, why this legislation is necessary. One witness explicitly said:
“I think you should be very worried when you hear large incumbents saying, “Set up a universal service obligation but don’t let it get too far ahead of what we’ve got in our business case.” That is not what business should be doing. Businesses will invest more if they are scared their customers will go elsewhere, not because they have been given a promise by Government”.––[Official Report, Digital Economy Bill Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 10, Q14.]
If we are really to tackle the issues in our broadband market, the evidence we have seen suggests that the USO is—at best—nice to have, but at worst it is a serious market distortion. In fact, the Government should be considering much deeper issues such as the structure of the market, much-needed investment in infrastructure, the need for planning reform to enable the roll-out of 5G and the need to be much more imaginative around future licence auctions. For example, as we have heard time and again, there is the German model to license outwards-in so that those who are missed out on previous rounds are serviced first.
Furthermore, we have heard in one form or another that all roads lead back to Openreach, and the Bill really could have been an opportunity to reflect on that. Baroness Harding believed that
“competition will do the majority of this, and we should try our damnedest to make the private sector fund most of this through competition”.
She concluded that,
“the solution is to separate Openreach completely and put a universal service obligation on an independent Openreach”. ––[Official Report, Digital Economy Bill Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 6, Q4.]
We heard in evidence that Openreach could and should be much more ambitious, deliver a better service and be in control of its own board, but evidence was given that, to achieve that, Openreach needs to be completely independent. It was argued that we have not been able to see how far a competitive commercial roll-out can go because we do not currently have a competitive commercial market, and we cannot have that market reform until, at the very least, we separate out Openreach.
One witness said:
“if we are going to be ambitious, to enable companies like ours to continue to grow, invest and innovate, we need a national solution, and a national solution will depend upon the national network owner, which is Openreach...That is why the structure of the industry does matter; the ability to get capital into the industry to invest in the kinds of future networks we need is critical”.––[Official Report, Digital Economy Bill Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 19, Q31.]
Ofcom has been unambiguous in saying that network competition—having multiple network operators on the ground and available to consumers—is the best driver of investment incentives, of superfast broadband penetration and of consumer outcomes. We would like the Minister to set a clear timeframe today for the response to the Ofcom consultation on Openreach. The consultation closed two weeks ago and, as I understand it, Ofcom are now in private consultation with BT. The public and Parliament need to know when we can expect the Ofcom response and what the next steps in the process will be.
Christian Matheson
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with Openreach is that, because it does not have a customer-facing aspect, its customer service and consequently its reputation have been extremely poor?
Louise Haigh
That is certainly one of the issues. I personally have poor experience with Openreach and I am sure many members of the Committee and their constituents will have, too. Public satisfaction with Openreach customer service is incredibly low and needs urgent investigation. However, we need more detail on some areas that have not been put in the Bill, but which were included in the statement of intent, as mentioned earlier.
An example is the fact that connections will be subject to a cost threshold, above which consumers will still have the right to fast, reliable broadband, but may have to contribute to the cost of connection. That is not much of a surprise, as it happens with the USO for telephone lines. There, the cost threshold is £3,400. Is it possible for the Minister to provide any guesstimate about the threshold for the broadband USO? Once again, we are being asked to vote on legislation that does not include vital details that could make the entire proposal almost completely useless. If the threshold is set too low, the right will essentially be meaningless for the vast majority of consumers, who already miss out, are on unacceptably low broadband speeds and are forced to pay unacceptably high prices. Will the threshold have any form of parliamentary scrutiny, or is this really enabling legislation that will allow the Minister to get his head around the details after the fact?
As we have discussed, we do not believe that the headline figure of 10 megabits is sufficiently ambitious, and nor is a headline speed sufficient when considering the quality of broadband available to the population as a whole. That point was raised by several hon. Members on Second Reading, and by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire in evidence sittings. It is a source of great frustration in rural areas, in particular when customers are promised mobile coverage or broadband speed that are not delivered. The Bill does little to correct that. Yes, it provides for automatic compensation, but I am confident that customers would much rather have coverage—and reliability of coverage—than recompense.
The Minister did not answer questions about BDUK earlier, so I will put them again, if that is all right, Mr Streeter. Is the Minister confident that access is the same as capacity, and that there is sufficient capacity in the cabinets in areas where BDUK has been rolled out to allow take-up? Does he believe that BDUK should be measured on take-up rather than access to broadband? I should be grateful if the Minister also updated the Committee on conversations with the Advertising Standards Authority about its code, so that companies can advertise a certain speed only when a certain percentage of their customers in that area get that speed. The ASA and its committees have been looking at that issue for some time, but surely the Bill is the perfect opportunity to speed up the process and provide much needed certainty and lower prices for rural customers.
Finally, we welcome plans to deliver superfast broadband connection to sites with more than 100 homes from January. That was raised time and again on Second Reading. It is absurd not to have minimum levels of broadband in new homes when we would never consider not connecting water or electricity to any new home, regardless of the numbers on the site. As the Countryside Alliance pointed out, the figure of 100 is too urban-centric, as rural areas are moving towards small-scale developments. I hope that the Government will keep the commitment under review and ensure that the figure is reduced in future, if necessary.
We must absolutely not let the USO get in the way of investment in developing super and ultrafast capabilities across the whole UK. We heard evidence stressing the threat that communities that might be pleased with 10 megabits today will be furious about not having 1 gigabit in three or four, or potentially 10 years’ time. Indeed, providers such as Virgin, and even smaller ones, such as Gigaclear, are now building proper fibre to the premises, providing up to 1 gig in extremely rural areas; so I fear that the target will quickly become completely outdated, even given the flexibility built into secondary legislation.
Overall, the Opposition support the commitment, with all the caveats I have outlined, and I am happy to support clause 1 to stand part of the Bill.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Ninety per cent. of UK households can access superfast broadband this year, and that number is set to improve in the next 12 months. However, many of the households that do not have access are in places such as my constituency in rural North Yorkshire, creating a digital divide between those who have access and those who do not. On behalf of my constituents, I welcome clause 1, which provides a safety net so that on reasonable request and at an affordable price they will have access to some measure of broadband connectivity.
Week in, week out, while I am doing my job, I see the benefits that that will bring, and the problems experienced today. Of course, economic development is important. My area is known for its tourism, but when I speak to the owners of holiday cottages or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, they tell me they must advertise across the world on the internet. When people come to visit the beautiful Yorkshire dales, when they have finished their day’s walking in the beauty and splendour of Swaledale, they want to come home and check their emails. It is important that my owners can provide that service.
I was at a school last weekend talking to a group of young pupils who are embracing a new course on coding. Obviously, we are not blessed with Silicon Valley yet in the Yorkshire dales, but they were accessing the resources of Code Academy online at school and wanted to continue that at home in the evening.
Beyond that, the internet keeps families together—not just grandparents who want to see their new grandchildren living abroad on Skype, but also a father to whom I spoke the other weekend who is unfortunately going through a difficult divorce. He told me that his children, with whom he was desperate to maintain a good relationship, were less keen to spend the weekend at his house because of his poor broadband connection.
The Government are moving to a “digital by default” approach to delivering public services, which is commendable, but it is important that everybody, especially farmers in rural areas, have the means to access those Government services.
For all those reasons—the tangible differences that the Bill will make to people’s lives—I welcome the Government’s delivering on their manifesto commitment to put in place the universal service obligation. The Government have the view that this should be an economy and society that works for everyone. Providing good digital connectivity to everybody is certainly part of making that aspiration a reality. On behalf of my constituents, I wholeheartedly welcome and support the measures in clause 1.
Calum Kerr
We also support clause 1. I will not repeat the points I made during the debate, but I want to bring a couple to the fore and ask the Minister one specific question, which I hope he will answer. We should not just be looking at closing the divide in the short term; we should be looking at a longer-term fix. We should consider what a minimum speed is today, but we should also be looking to what that might become in the future.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley pointed out that the EU target is 100 megabits per second by 2025. While we can aim for 10 megabits per second, if we do not set a horizon of where we want the target to go, we risk putting sticking plasters all over the country and getting solutions that will have no lifespan. We will all be back here in a few years’ time, saying, “I wish we’d listened to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley who wanted an annual review.” We would know that this provision had not been delivered.
Let us try to avoid that scenario and ensure that as the USO goes through the process, what Ofcom designs not only looks at where we are today, but where we want to go in the future. When the Minister gives the main event speech tomorrow at the INCA event, which is advocating a strategy for gigabit Britain, he should set forward a truly ambitious vision of what the UK can offer in this space. Perhaps his response will provide me with some reassurance.
As we have looked at amendments, I have tried to ensure that not only have the Scottish Government and other Administrations been consulted, but they are part of the formulation of the USO. Consultation can be tokenistic or it can be fully engaged and evolved. We need to be fully involved in the design of this process, so that where we set an ambition, a target of 30 megabits per second, the USO supports it—for example, through foundational funding through a voucher scheme. Where any one of the regional councils want to do the same and set an ambitious higher target, the USO should support that, rather than offer a solution that forces them into a corner.
Will the Minister reassure me that the USO designed by his Government with Ofcom will support devolved Administrations and regions and provide foundational funding—not just 10 megabits, take it or leave it?
Nigel Huddleston
There is obviously a growing consensus and recognition of the importance to all our constituents of the universal service obligation. As always, the devil is in the detail. I understand that some of those details will be provided or revealed in secondary legislation. I do not buy some of the concerns expressed today about a possible lack of scrutiny in the progress of the USO. As a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, alongside other members of this Committee, I am confident that we will continue to do that job robustly and effectively to raise issues and concerns.
I cannot imagine how many times we have heard issues related to broadband and mobile brought up in the Chamber, in Westminster Hall and elsewhere in this place, so we can scrutinise in multiple ways. We also have to be careful that we do not constrain our ambition by thinking of current technology and current speeds. It is important that we go with the flow and update our ambitions accordingly as technology develops.
Matt Hancock
We all agree that broadband is a modern necessity, and I am delighted at the Committee’s tone in supporting the goals we have set out to drive connectivity across the whole of Britain. The legal framework for introducing a USO seems to have been warmly received on both sides of the Committee. I will respond to the individual points that have been made.
First, on the ambition, thankfully we now have a Bill to introduce the framework for delivering the high level of connectivity that we need. Baroness Harding told us in our first evidence session that
“I think it is a great thing.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 10, Q15.]
We also heard the Bill described as an “incredibly important step”. As Pete Moorey from Which? said:
“There are critical things in the Bill that will start to bring the telecoms sector kicking and screaming into the 21st century.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 24, Q47.]
That is support for the importance and direction of the Bill.
On the specific point, Ofcom’s consultation on the market structure, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley mentioned, closed on 4 October and Ofcom will respond shortly. The timing is a matter for Ofcom, and it would be improper of me to pre-empt it. She is right that the threshold will be determined by the consultation, and it is wrong to try to pre-empt that consultation process. Instead, we should do things properly.
The hon. Lady will no doubt welcome an update on new homes. We have a new commitment that any development of more than 30 homes, rather than more than 100 homes, will have fibre connections and, as of 1 January, building regulations will require superfast connections in new buildings. The sensible suggestion from both sides of the House that new houses should be built with what is needed for the future has now been enacted.
Christian Matheson
I am pleased to hear that building regulations are changing. Will the Minister also have conversations with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to change planning regulations so that newly built premises, properties and estates are ducted and cabled ready for connection?
Matt Hancock
I will look into that. I will be surprised if that does not happen already, but I will take it up.
Claire Perry
Will the Minister make representations that the threshold of 100 houses for the mandatory provision is perhaps a little high, certainly for those of us in rural constituencies?
Matt Hancock
I repeat what I have just said: the floor of 100 homes has come down to 30 homes for fibre connections, but all new buildings will be required to have access to a superfast connection from 1 January. Those points have been taken on board.
Calum Kerr
Will the Minister clarify, especially given his comments earlier about what fibre means, whether that is fibre to the premises or access to superfast over copper?
Matt Hancock
To channel the Prime Minister, fibre means fibre. If hon. Members want to know what fibre means, it means fibre.
On the point about measuring BT and BDUK on take-up not access, both BT and BDUK are measured on take-up as well as access. Both are important. In fact, the contracts have take-up embedded in them, because the clawback from higher take-up allows money to be spent on further roll-out. The contracts that are being rolled out at the moment are from that clawback. The hon. Lady is therefore absolutely right that both take-up and access are important, and in the county-by-county figures from BDUK we have both take-up and access.
I also strongly agree with the hon. Lady on advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority has consulted for some time on descriptions of both “up to” speeds and pricing arrangements, both of which can be wholly misleading. I very much hope that the ASA will come out with new rules shortly—it has been working on that for some time. However, advertising is policed on a non-statutory basis and I think it would be a significant step for us to legislate on that matter because we do not want political interference in the rules around advertising. That is a step that I do not want to take. I do want the ASA to come to its conclusions as soon as possible. I hope that that answers all the questions that were asked on that point.
Louise Haigh
I appreciate that the Minister may not want to pre-empt the Ofcom consultation, but will there be any parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals that Ofcom will bring forward, or will we leave it to Ofcom and accept what it brings forward in terms of design, cost threshold and everything else we have debated this morning?
Matt Hancock
Of course there will be parliamentary scrutiny, because the Bill provides for the USO details to be put in place via secondary legislation. There will be scrutiny then and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty pointed out, there will also be the opportunity for Select Committees to scrutinise in their usual way. I hope that without reading the rest of my speech, which is all about how important and wonderful broadband is, the Committee will accept what I have said as a full response.
Calum Kerr
Perhaps the Minister missed my request. Will he reassure me that the schemes put in place will be designed to support national commitments such as the Scottish Government’s 30 megabits and other regional commitments? The issue is all down to how the USO is designed. If it is simply put out as a 10 megabit service—take it or leave it—it will not help, whereas a regional, flexible model such as the voucher scheme that BDUK has done before could provide the foundational funding.
Matt Hancock
In short, although the precise design is subject to the Ofcom consultation, my view is that the potential in the Bill for the USO is more ambitious than the Scottish Government’s, because theirs is to be delivered later and has already specified a speed. Instead, we have proposals coming in sooner and with uprating built in from the start.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
General conditions: switching communications provider
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
The Opposition are happy to support the clause. As we know, there are currently extremely low levels of switching in the market, with 5.9 million mobile users having never switched owing to concerns with the process and 2.5 million people saying they have experienced a major difficulty such as the amount of time it took or loss of their number. Every year, more than a million people are either double-billed or lose service in attempts to switch.
I understand that Ofcom has been considering how to make switching work for over eight years, and I am informed that the decision on switching has been delayed because of previous appeals and the current appeal regime, which we will come on to later in the Bill.
The powers for Ofcom to introduce gainer provider-led switching are welcomed by Opposition Members, as the figures clearly show there is little appetite to switch mobile provider at present, despite the clear lack of trust in mobile service providers themselves. In the last year, almost half of consumers have not switched providers; of those who have switched, 46% of them did so more than a year ago.
As Members are aware, at the moment switching providers is beyond arduous. Individuals have to contact their own provider and then the provider they wish to switch to. They have to terminate their old contract and then activate their new contract. This creates additional costs, time and hassle, and means that consumers are not able to compare all the deals available to them easily.
These proposals are welcome, but do the Government intend gainer provider-led switching to cover both mobiles and bundles? Clearly, many mobile networks also operate in other areas, such as internet and television, so would it not make it even easier for consumers if they could switch all at once if a better offer was provided? We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could put on the record what discussions he has had with Ofcom and mobile providers about the range and depth of information that will be available. Clearly, the lack of open data in this market holds back switching, but as we discussed earlier it also holds back investment and competition. It is very welcome to hear that BT has offered that information, but we would be grateful to hear exactly what data it is making available. Data on internet availability—such as costs, product offerings, location of cabinets and masts, access method, service quality, service faults, and planned network upgrade and dates—would all be enormously beneficial if they were published as open data.
That would be a considerable step towards creating a more effective market. It would not only help with switching but would enable an operator, community group or local authority to decide whether to build a new network for an area if there were no other plans to do so.
Nevertheless, these measures are very welcome and we on the Labour Benches are pleased to support them.
Matt Hancock
Consumers should be able to benefit from choice and competition in the UK communications markets, and I am very grateful for the cross-party support for these measures.
The central case is that changing suppliers should be quick and easy, and can benefit all. However, the reality is that no matter how attractive a deal may look, or how dissatisfied a customer may be with their current service, the rigmarole or the perceived rigmarole involved in changing provider deters switching. This clause makes it explicit that Ofcom has powers to facilitate easier switching in the communications sector.
It will be for Ofcom to consult on and define which communication services will be subject to switching processes. Ofcom is consulting on triple play—so fixed line, broadband and pay TV switching—with a view to simplifying the processes to switch multiple services as well. The clause will help to cement Ofcom’s power and will put in place processes to instil in consumers the confidence to shop around. That is the purpose of the clause.
There are ongoing discussions with Ofcom about the range and depth of information that is provided. Of course, the measure complements the information powers given to Ofcom in part 6 of the Bill, which we will come on to. So, once consumers have better information to hand about the services on offer, they can then switch to the service that is most suitable for them with confidence and the minimum of fuss.
Ofcom has existing powers to set conditions on electronic communication service providers, and this clause makes it explicit that Ofcom may set general conditions to facilitate switching. Such conditions could require providers to comply with defined processes, such as gaining provider-led switching. This approach would mean that consumers would no longer need to contact their existing provider when they want to move, and of course the gaining provider has the incentive to make these things as easy as possible.
I hope that all these things will help to boost switching and therefore make this market more competitive.
I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Automatic compensation for failure to meet performance standards
Calum Kerr
I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(db) require a communications provider to allow an end-user to terminate a contract on repeatedly failing to meet a specific standard or obligation;”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, after “obligation”, insert “within reasonable timescales”.
New clause 2—Ability of end-user to cancel telephone contract in event of lack of signal at residence—
“A telecommunications service provider must allow an end-user to cancel a contract relating to a hand-held mobile telephone if, at any point during the contract term, the mobile telephone is consistently unable to obtain a signal when located at the end-user’s main residence.”.
Calum Kerr
The area of compensation is one that we have all probably been hearing about from our constituents for quite some time. Before speaking to the amendments, which are about mobile coverage, let me first welcome the important move in the Bill that not only puts compensation in place but makes it automatic. Telecoms and connectivity can feel like the dark arts to some of our constituents and it is important that whatever is put in place does not depend on their understanding the details of what they are entitled to. However, the point has already been made today that when people sign up for a broadband service, there should be far clearer, granular detail on what they should expect. We have wrestled today with what a USO should be; we have talked about download; we have talked about upload; the Minister rightly mentioned other areas such as latency and data limits; and of course cost comes into it.
In terms of compensation, it is important to recognise that broadband is different from telephony. Telephony is fairly binary—it is on or off. It works or it does not. There might be some interference, but it remains a fairly binary service. Broadband, however, is defined by many different characteristics.
As we look at a compensation regime, we need to look at the speed expectations. When someone signs up for a broadband service, they sign up for a service that is, by definition, contended. It is shared, which is why, as those who have ever been at home when the kids all get home from school, broadband speeds sometimes plummet. That is the reality of the service that is signed up for and that reality has to be accepted on a contended service—those who want a less contended service need to sign up for an appropriate service with BT or another provider—but there should still be levels of expectation. There should be a top-line download speed, an average speed and, in my view, a baseline speed, below which the service does not drop.
As we look at compensation, I would like to see some flexibility. Given the complete lack of information in the Bill—in keeping with the earlier clauses—there is the ability here for Ofcom to show flexibility and design an appropriate system. The telecoms providers all have huge challenges to face on their performance standards—the digital communications review called them out. BT was singled out, but it was not the only one. They all have a way to go in improving their service standards, so a compensation regime should be designed to incentivise them. We have to remember that this is about incentivising good performance, not about penalising bad performance, although the two obviously go side by side. We should design a scheme that is automatic and ensures people are compensated but that, most importantly allows people to get the service that they are promised and the providers are contracted for. That is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey instigated work on the areas addressed in amendment 60 and new clause 2 some time ago. There are huge chunks of the country, not least the highlands but also the equally beautiful Scottish borders in my constituency, where there are notspots—in fact, it feels like there are more notspots than onspots most of the time, as I found on my summer tour. My hon. Friend brought forward proposals, which were put to the then Minister and Ofcom, to allow individuals who have signed up for a mobile service and then found that they cannot get proper service at home to be allowed out of their contract. Some providers—I think Vodafone was mentioned in the evidence session—have started to offer that. I hope that—hope is not a strategy, as we always used to say, but sometimes it is all we have—the Government will accept the sense of the amendment and new clause and put it in the legislation, to make it absolutely clear that, if I sign up for a mobile service and cannot use my device in my home, I am entitled to cancel that contract.
Louise Haigh
I rise to support the amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. I also support the amendments tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. I understand from the debate and the statement of intent that the baseline speed mentioned—10 megabits per second, as the Minister clarified—is the absolute minimum. The Opposition welcome the Government’s proposals to amend the requirements on automatic compensation, which will bring broadband services in line with other essential services such as energy and water. That recognition naturally extends to a form of automatic redress when things go wrong.
Calum Kerr
I am sorry to intervene so quickly, but this is an area where we need a bit of clarity. We have said that 10 megabits per second is a minimum, but as I understand it, it is a minimum maximum speed. It does not mean that under the USO, users will always get 10 megabits per second; it means that they sign up for a service where the maximum is 10 megabits per second. I think that is an important point to clarify.
Louise Haigh
We look forward to the Minister’s clarification.
More than 13 million households suffer from some form of broadband problem. It is about time that automatic compensation was introduced. As we know, seeking redress and compensation is often difficult for consumers, and brings little reward; many simply give up. Currently, users must lodge a formal complaint with their provider, then escalate that complaint to the ombudsman after eight weeks if they are not happy with the response. The onus certainly should not be on the customer to prove that they have lost service or that the service has not met the standard required. Where possible, automatic compensation should be made when a service provider becomes aware of a possible loss or reduction in service.
However, as has been mentioned, the legislation is not entirely clear on how the provision will be enforced, although we welcome the broad powers given to Ofcom. For example, if the fault is with the service provided to the retailer by Openreach, will the retailer pass on the compensation to the consumer who has been affected? How much will then reach the consumer? What will the level of compensation be? Which? has called for households to get £75 in compensation each time their broadband connection goes down, in line with compensation levels for power cuts. Will there be separate levels of compensation for broadband being slow or not working at all? Will the compensation cover planned network outages? Will the new regime come into effect on Royal Assent? Has Ofcom now completed all necessary consultation work?
Our amendment simply seeks to provide compensation within reasonable timescales. Consumers certainly would not want compensation payouts to drag on and on or broadband providers to drag their feet when there has been a clear outage and they are entitled to compensation. The automatic compensation model for the energy market is that it should be paid within 10 days of the customer claiming, or within 10 days of the end of the power cut if they are being paid automatically. That seems reasonable, but the Minister and Ofcom might have other ideas about what is reasonable.
Either way, we believe that it is important to set a clear timescale to ensure that consumers know exactly what they are entitled to, when they are entitled to it and how to go about claiming it if it is not forthcoming. We welcome the provisions and the recognition that consumers have a right to broadband and therefore a right to compensation if it goes wrong, but we would like assurances written into the Bill that compensation will be paid quickly.
The Chair
Order. We will adjourn in about two minutes, but let us hear from Mr Hendry before we continue on Thursday.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk on his comments about the need for proper compensation, particularly for those promised services either explicitly or through advertising that has led them to believe that they will get those services. It is incumbent on us to do something about advertising that promises people broadband “up to” speeds that have no chance of being delivered, when they cannot even get reasonable speeds in their area. As a result, rural areas can suffer a double effect; they are over-promised and then drastically under-delivered.
I am wary of the time, so I will speak briefly in support of the new clause. Residents of Fort Augustus in my constituency went for three months without the mobile signal that they were contracted to receive, without any compensation, redress or ability to change to another provider during that time. This should be an easy aspect for the Government to sign up to. I hope that the Minister will follow on from his predecessor.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch off electronic devices, or turn them to silent. Teas and coffees are not allowed as props during sittings. We will first consider the programme motion. We will then consider a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session and a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 October;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 October;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 November;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
Date | Time | Witness |
|---|---|---|
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 10.30 am | British Property Federation Federation of Master Builders Home Builders Federation Country Land and Business Association |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 11.25 am | Local Government Association Historic England National Infrastructure Planning Association Town and Country Planning Association |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 2.30 pm | National Association of Local Councils Royal Institute of British Architects |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 3.00 pm | Locality Campaign to Protect Rural England |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 4.00 pm | Compulsory Purchase Association Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Law Society Royal Town Planning Institute |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 4.45 pm | Department for Communities and Local Government |
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 7; Schedule 2; Clauses 8 to 36; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 1 November.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Gavin Barwell.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Gavin Barwell.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I think I probably need to do so, because I still have shares in a company called Polity Communications, which gives advice to developers on how to get planning permission. I have in the past done work on opposing things with community groups as well.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I should mention that I employ a local authority council member in my parliamentary team.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I should draw colleagues’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a shareholder in a business that provides finance for construction projects.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the majority shareholder of a company that provides finance for construction equipment.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I employ two local authority members in my parliamentary and constituency office. For the record, I should probably also say that one of the witnesses is the leader of the council in my local area.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Whitaker, Roy Pinnock, Andrew Dixon and Ross Murray gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the British Property Federation, the Federation of Master Builders, the Home Builders Federation and the Country Land and Business Association.
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order. The Committee has agreed that, for this session, we have until 10.30 am. Welcome, witnesses. Would you introduce yourselves, from left to right?
Andrew Whitaker: Certainly, sir. I am Andrew Whitaker. I am the planning director at the Home Builders Federation.
Roy Pinnock: I am Roy Pinnock. I am a solicitor and partner at the law firm Dentons, and I am here on behalf of the British Property Federation.
Andrew Dixon: I am Andrew Dixon. I am head of policy at the Federation of Master Builders.
Ross Murray: Chairman, good morning. I am Ross Murray. I am president of the Country Land and Business Association, representing the rural interest and the rural economy.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q Thank you, Mr Bone. Good morning. It is a pleasure to see some of you again. We have been around the houses a bit on planning and housing Bills.
I will start with the most contentious part of the Bill for the Labour party, which is the changes to pre-commencement planning conditions. What evidence is there to suggest that pre-commencement conditions are overused and cause delays in planning processes? It would be helpful if you could give some examples to help us understand the issue.
Andrew Whitaker: Obviously, anything that prevents somebody from getting on site and starting implementation of their planning permission is a delay to implementation. Any condition on a planning permission that says that you have to do something before you can commence that development is an obvious delay. Therefore, by very definition, pre-commencement conditions are a delay. However, I want to make it very clear that we are not against pre-commencement conditions per se. They perform a valuable role and are a valuable tool in allowing permission to be granted subject to various things that still need to be sorted out. Therefore, we are supportive of the provision in the Bill.
We want to see greater dialogue between local planning authorities and applicants about the kind of conditions that they believe are necessary on their permission and the timing of those conditions. At the moment, the default for those conditions is to make them pre-commencement, rather than to have a discussion with the applicant about the most appropriate time for those conditions to be discharged in the development process.
We accept that some very important conditions must be discharged before the commencement of development but, similarly, we believe that a lot of unnecessary pre-commencement conditions are put on planning applications that, by definition, delay implementation.
Roy Pinnock: I will address the question in relation to the number of instances of those conditions. The Killian Pretty review, which reported eight years ago almost to the day, conducted research that identified an average of eight pre-commencement conditions. I am not sure which sample of consents it looked at, because now the number of pre-commencement conditions could range up to as many as 22.
In my experience as a practitioner, you would be lucky these days to get away with eight pre-commencement conditions; 22 is more likely to be the norm. That is a lot to work through to get on site, particularly when there is an effect on the ability to fund schemes, to get them across the line and to get them moving in a period where there may be uncertainty. The BPF’s position, to reflect Mr Whitaker’s points, is that pre-commencement conditions play an important role. They often reflect the choices made when applying for consent, and do not provide detail or engage in fully detailing some of the plans and costs before consent is granted. But pre-commencement conditions are often imposed in a way that is arbitrary, unnecessary and indiscriminate. The British Property Federation would support greater use of model conditions backed by a system for being able to seek determination of whether it is appropriate to use those model conditions and modifications to the proposed section 100ZA, which is proposed by clause 7(5). I would be happy to outline the BPF’s proposals for those amendments in due course.
Andrew Dixon: Those of our members who are small-scale house builders consistently tell us that the number of planning conditions they are facing has increased very significantly in recent years. Our 2016 House Builders’ Survey asked a question as to which of a number of different causes of delays within the planning application system—
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt. It may be that I am going deaf, but the volume seems a little low in here today. I do not know if anyone can flick a switch or something to try to get it turned up, or perhaps the witnesses could speak closer to the microphone. It was just a little difficult to hear at this end.
Andrew Dixon: I may have been mumbling—I apologise. I was saying that our latest House Builders’ Survey asked a question as to what our members saw as the most significant causes of delay within the planning application process, and the signing off of planning conditions came at No. 2 out of six, I think, just behind the under-resourcing of local planning departments and ahead of things like negotiations and signing off of section 106 and delays caused by statutory consultees that have traditionally been seen as major causes of delay and stasis within the system. There is some evidence there. As the last two speakers have said, our members report this is a problem.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q I am sorry to interrupt you, Andrew. You said there is evidence there. Actually, what you have collected is the opinions of your members. Did they provide examples to demonstrate what was actually causing the delays?
Andrew Dixon: In terms of what causes the delays, it is not just undertaking the actions specified in the conditions but the delays in signing off those conditions. It is the delays in having those conditions discharged. Unfortunately, quite significant delays in signing off conditions are, we think, the norm.
There are any number of reasons for that, but I think one of them is that the incentives within the system for local authorities are to process applications within a given period of time and, to some extent, to have permissions in place, but the strong perception from our members is that once the permission is granted, the impetus from the local authority’s point of view goes out of the window. Quite reasonably, their priorities then may be elsewhere. That is the fault within the system that leads to conditions causing unnecessary delays.
Ross Murray: The Country Land and Business Association carried out a survey of its members this summer, in July, and over half said they wished to partake in provision of more rural housing, which we thought was very encouraging. But a third of them said that they are frustrated in making these investments because of the planning system in general. This is not specific to your question, but we also provide our 32,000 members with an advisory service and by far the largest call on advice was to do with planning: roughly 4,000 inquiries a year are to do with planning, of which a proportion—I cannot give an exact amount—relate to conditionality.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Are the measures in the Bill sufficient to speed up the whole pre-commencement planning conditions issue, so that you will get quicker agreement on what needs to be done by your members and in the discharge?
Ross Murray: No, not at all. In my experience, the problem with the whole planning process is that the potato stamp comes out from the harassed officer who is dealing with the application, and the first time the applicant generally sees the conditions is when the report goes to committee and becomes public five days before committee hearing. Best practice would suggest that actually the planning officer should negotiate and discuss with the applicant pre-commencement conditions during the process of assessing the application, but in reality I do not believe that happens. So the problem is that the applicant, if he is successful when the committee has passed the application, has then got to deal with pre-commencement conditions that might not accord with section 206 of the national planning policy framework, in that they are unreasonable or whatever.
Andrew Whitaker: We actually think that it will help. We have tried to get local authorities to have a conversation with applicants about the conditions they wish to place on planning applications in order to grant permission, and it has just not happened. Good practice has not worked, so using legislation appears to be the only way we will be able to get local authorities and applicants to have a dialogue about what conditions are being imposed on the decision, which of those should rightly be pre-commencement and which should be discharged further in the development process.
Roy Pinnock: Could I put forward a middle way in that context? The BPF’s position is that it has concerns that the measures as put forward under section 100ZA(5) would not deliver a faster outcome for applicants. That is because where applicants disagree with the draft conditions, the only recourse they have is the recourse they have already got, which is ineffective given the time and cost implications of pursuing a full-blown planning appeal. So it leads us no further forward, but we have introduced a further layer of complexity to the planning onion for people to talk about.
Although I agree with Mr Whitaker’s comments and the other comments that have been made about the need for dialogue and the need to promote that dialogue—where that is done, it can lead to some quite good results—the difficulty, in particular in the context of local authority resourcing, which we might come on to later, is that those authorities simply do not have the capability, the capacity and, I stress, in a few cases, the competence to deal with it now, because they have been totally denuded of that. So the ability to actually deliver what the Government are seeking is under huge pressure.
The BPF’s proposal is that there is a specific right of appeal under section 100ZA, so that if a consent is refused or has to be appealed solely because of a failure to reach agreement in relation to pre-commencement conditions—where peace has been given a chance—it should be possible to appeal and to appeal on that point alone. That appeal is then dealt with on a constrained basis, so that, rather than a wholescale reconsideration of the application de novo, only the issues relevant to the condition itself are considered. Obviously, as you know, applications to vary existing planning conditions under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are already dealt with on that basis, so there is already a clear legal framework, both in terms of statute and case law, for dealing with appeals on that narrow basis. How narrow it is—and the law confirms—depends on the nature of the condition.
My last point on that is that that appeal system should provide for a fast-track written reps appeal process. That was done for the section 106BC appeal route that was provided for under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013. It was very successful in terms of timescale, and there is absolutely no reason why that could not be done here, subject to resources being available within the Planning Inspectorate to deal with it. Given that it should reduce the overall burden on the inspectorate in relation to appeals, one would hope that a fast-track system would actually deliver something. We are hearing that it is required, ultimately, and sometimes it would be inevitable that it would be. The BPF’s position is that costs should sit squarely and clearly from the outset with the party that fails. The BPF’s position is simply that in using the legislation—the levers Government have—there can be changes, like section 96A and other changes that have been introduced, that drive a cultural change quickly, so that people do not constantly need to have recourse to legislation to effect what we are trying to achieve on delivery.
Oliver Colvile
Q Thank you very much, gentlemen, for giving up your time to come and have a chat with us. Before I was elected to this place, I did a lot of work in the development industry, giving advice to developers on how to manage community consultations and stuff like that. A number of my clients would have said that every time the Government get involved in producing another piece of planning law, frankly, that delays everything. I would be interested in your comments.
Turning to preconditions, I am very keen to make sure that local communities are absolutely and utterly involved in the whole decision-making process and feel that they should have their say. How do you think we can ensure that the preconditions are also considered by local communities in the process?
Andrew Whitaker: I do not think there is any doubt that local communities are involved in the planning process and in the planning application process. Therefore, the discussion over the determination of the planning application should involve whether things about the planning application need to be sorted out at a later date, and therefore communities should be expressing those concerns in their representations as part of the planning process. They are represented by elected members at a local level, so I have no worries that local communities are not involved in the determination of a planning application as it proceeds through all the legal procedures. Whether to place a condition on that planning permission is part of the determination process, so whether or not as a community you agree that condition or that the condition should be pre-commencement, it is possible to raise that through the normal procedure, rather than as a discussion on the particular schedule of those conditions. That is a technical process as to whether you need the condition in the first place.
Andrew Dixon: We would very much agree with that. We do not see this as in any way reducing the extent to which local communities and local residents can be involved in the process or can have their say on particular applications. Broadly speaking, the Federation of Master Builders is positive about the provisions on conditions in the Bill because we think that they would institute an earlier conversation about which conditions are necessary, which need to be pre-commencement conditions and which do not, and which can perhaps be pre-occupation conditions, but none of that precludes those conditions being in place or those issues being tackled in some other way. It should serve to institute an earlier conversation about how best to deal with those issues.
Helen Hayes
Q Mr Whitaker, you mentioned a couple of times that it is best practice for conditions to be agreed in discussion between the local authority and the applicant, and I agree with you. The Bill proposes a much more formal process than that through an exchange of letters between an applicant and the local authority to agree the conditions. The mechanisms in the Bill for resolving a dispute, when that process can be resolved through an exchange of letters, are pretty blunt: the rejection of the application wholesale, and the developer is then left in the position of going to appeal. Notwithstanding what you said about the system not working so well at the moment, can you comment on whether this will help to further encourage best practice, or whether formalising the process in the way proposed in the Bill might have unintended consequences?
Andrew Whitaker: Formalising the discussion in writing—of course, that does not mean by post these days—is reasonable. It makes it very clear what people have and have not agreed to, and one can go back and check that that is the case. We would agree with the BPF’s proposal that a fast-track appeal mechanism when disagreement continues would be a good idea, because that would sort out some of the potential further delay that this provision would introduce.
In terms of whether this is a blunt sword—a blunt instrument—the whole point is that one is not supposed to hold the other party to ransom. The applicant is not going to say, “I am not going to accept any pre-commencement conditions on my planning decision at all,” because then it might be perfectly right for the local planning authority to say, “In which case we will refuse your application, on the basis that you haven’t sorted out a particular detail that you could do via condition, so long as you do it prior to commencement of your application.” Or they have to think to themselves, “Would we be happy defending that at an appeal when the only thing we are concerned about is not whether this particular issue can be dealt with via condition but whether it needs to be worded as a pre-commencement condition, rather than as a condition that can be discharged at a different stage in the development process?”
There are lots of trigger points in a development, the most obvious of which is prior to the occupation of a dwelling. You are allowed to do all the groundwork—to slab level, as we call it—so you can word conditions like that. You do not need to agree everything prior to commencement, and we believe that that discussion will be able to focus minds and, ultimately, will lead to the best practice that we all seek.
Roy Pinnock: I have just two points on that in relation to the discussion and dialogue, and the role of the planning onion—we just add another layer to it and make things more complex, rather than less complex. I think that is in part your point: do we add to the systemic complexity that we already have in this regime, which is already a series of layers? As I have already said, the BPF’s position is that there is an opportunity here to do something that is quick, clear and effective, which is where a measure that has real teeth tends to drive cultural changes.
I go back to the question on whether more legislation can really achieve anything in the planning world. Section 96A is a really good example of that. It is a very small amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that has had a great impact on the day-to-day lives of practitioners by making things a lot easier, and it has driven a cultural change without people having to rely too heavily on legalistic points.
The second point is in relation to how we actually speed up the dialogue and use this as a tool. In part, the solution may be to have greater use of model conditions, which the Planning Inspectorate used to promote. We feel there is an opportunity for the Government to be much clearer about what their model conditions are, using working groups from industry and the government sector to say, “This should be the starting point. This should be when these kinds of conditions are imposed. We shouldn’t be asking for details of windows when you are decontaminating a site or knocking buildings down. This is the form of the conditions imposed.” By doing that we would drain away a lot of the administrative tasks that planning officers, of whom there are too few, are being required to do. They can rely on those model conditions and say, “We have done our job and have justified departures from them because we think it’s important to local people on this particular issue. We are prepared”—as Mr Whitaker said—“to justify that in front of an inspector, and we think they will reach the same decision.”
Helen Hayes
Q I am a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, and yesterday we heard evidence from a range of witnesses within the sector, including from the Federation of Master Builders and the Home Builders Federation, about the lack of resource and capacity in local authority planning departments. It was suggested in that evidence session that the reported overuse of pre-commencement planning conditions is a symptom of a lack of resource in planning departments, rather than a wilful misuse of pre-commencement conditions on the part of local authorities. Will you comment on your experience of the resourcing issues in local authority planning departments?
Andrew Dixon: We would certainly agree that under-resourcing is one of the major drivers behind the high level of use of planning conditions. The strong perception among our members is that planning conditions are often being used to limit the necessity of engaging in detail with a full application. Among the things that often arise from that are planning conditions that have actually been covered in the full application. An example of that would be landscaping. I have heard a number of our members say that detailed landscaping plans were included in their full application but that there did not seem to be any engagement with it, there then being a condition to bring forward those details. Under-resourcing is a major issue that causes numerous hold-ups within the system, and we think it is one of the drivers behind the excessive use of conditions.
Ross Murray: This is very profound in rural planning authorities, which are significantly under-resourced in planning. Our members around the country see that all the time. The Committee must also have a mind to the resource of the applicant and the risks within the process. We should do anything that we can to provide certainty of process after the application has been determined, and when an applicant finds that the pre-commencement conditions just do not work for him. In a rural context, these are often low-return projects, and the planning process is the highest risk point at the start of the process.
Andrew Whitaker: It is very much a chicken-and-egg situation. If local authorities do not put enough resources into determining a planning application, the temptation is—rather lazily, in my opinion—to deal with everything via condition, rather than as part of the primary application. If authorities focused their resources on what needed to be done as part of the application, they would need to condition less. That would relieve them of having to discharge conditions, which can take just as many resources as the primary application. Therefore, we think that local authorities should reassess their systems and processes to focus their limited resources into the right parts of the process.
Chris Philp
Q I would like to continue the line of questioning on resourcing and planning departments that Helen Hayes started. Mr Dixon, you said earlier that the lack of resourcing in planning departments was the No. 1 impediment to getting more applications. Will you confirm that that was the case?
Andrew Dixon: That was the case.
Chris Philp
Q Mr Murray said that certainty of process was the most important thing. Would your members or the development community be willing to pay for further resources in local authority planning departments by way of higher planning fees if, in exchange, they had guaranteed service levels—that is, the extra planning fee would be refundable if the service level was not met? Are you willing to pay to remedy the problem you are highlighting?
Andrew Dixon: The overwhelming feeling of our members is that they are quite happy to pay a higher application fee as long as those resources are ring-fenced and go into a demonstrably improved service. There would be very little resistance to that.
Chris Philp
Q It is relatively rare to find people volunteering to pay more money.
Andrew Dixon: It is fairly standard in any walk of life that people are prepared to pay more for a better service. Our members are no different in that sense.
Ross Murray: From my perspective, I would agree. Delay is risk; risk is money.
Roy Pinnock: The BPF’s position is absolutely in agreement with that. It has set that out in its response to technical consultations. There are issues of how the application is structured, indexation, inflation, and the linking of that fee not just for authorities that are performing well, but for those that are under real pressure for other reasons. There is a general consensus, particularly among commercial development investors, that you get what you pay for. There is a completely profound lack of resource in authorities to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves. It is the single biggest brake on development, in terms of applications and starts on site, in my experience as a practitioner.
Chris Philp
Q What level of fee uplift, compared to today’s levels, would your members or the development community be willing to pay if a guaranteed service level—an application determined within x period—was associated with that fee uplift? Give us a feel for the quantum.
Roy Pinnock: I might just duck that question, like any true lawyer. The critical point is that we are very used to planning performance agreements, and to guaranteed service levels being offered and assumed, and then not being delivered. There is sympathy for the reasons for that, not least because applications are complex. Local people’s relationship with planning is complex, and quite rightly so, as we are making difficult decisions. Probably the worst thing, from an applicant’s point of view, is that a guaranteed committee date is set and you do not get that committee. You then go into the long grass, and that is used to ransom the applicant. Concessions are made throughout the application process to get to that committee.
Chris Philp
Q So if the fee uplift was refundable if the date got missed, would that give comfort?
Roy Pinnock: It would and the planning guarantee should achieve that currently. The BPF would support that planning guarantee being amended, which would require the application regulations to be changed. The original idea of the planning guarantee was that you should determine either way—refuse if it is a rubbish scheme or approve if it is a great scheme. Within 25 weeks there should be certainty. That certainty is crucial to everyone.
How the planning guarantee works at the moment is that where there is an agreed extension of time, it drops away entirely. It is not the case that if you agree to extend the time to enable a sensible dialogue about the detail of planning application matters, and then that extension fails to deliver a result, you go back to the position of being able to claw back the application fee. What happens, for no good reason, is that it kills off altogether the ability to rely on the planning guarantee. That is completely wrong and undermines the whole purpose and intended effect of the guarantee. In our view, that should be amended so that the system has real teeth.
Chris Philp
Q Am I right in thinking that the current planning agreements apply only to large applications? The planning agreements that can already be entered into do not currently help small applications, so one could also introduce that.
Roy Pinnock: Yes, although there is another resourcing issue around entering into and administering planning performance agreements. There is a cultural shift that needs to go on around how applications are project- managed. That is true of the commercial sector, in terms of how it approaches negotiating section 106 agreements, when it looks at conditions in the application process and how much it is prepared to take things on at the earliest stage.
There is also an issue around how to programme-manage people’s diaries. Within an authority, you need sign-off from transport, the education aspect of the authority and housing officers. At the moment, you cannot get a meeting. I have waited three months for an authority to sit down. We said, “Look, there’s no point us sending ping-pong emails on this agreement because you keep telling us everything is not agreed. We just want to sit around the table with everyone and understand your views.” That is impossible, and it is partly due to the chaos, unfortunately, that is going on because of the multiple restructurings and the lack of resource.
Chris Philp
Q Are you satisfied that section 106 agreements, which are currently entered into after planning permission is granted, are adequate? It can take a long time to agree them. Are you satisfied that they are adequately addressed by the Bill or not? Do you think that they can still be a source of delay?
Roy Pinnock: They can be a source of delay, but equally, they are highly sophisticated tools for development. I will give you one example: the North Greenwich peninsula. There are 15,000 new homes approved on public land, despite the number of parties involved: the Greater London Authority, the developer and the Royal Borough of Greenwich. That took place within three months of the planning board.
There are other examples. I have just done two schemes further south and west in the country, and it has taken more than a year to get from committee resolution to approval to planning consent. It depends very much how that is approached, but fundamentally, far too much is in section 106 agreements. Much more should be in planning conditions. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 provides a mechanism for a dispute resolution service. We think that should be used in the same way as the appeal that we have spoken about in relation to section 100ZA to provide recourse where planning obligations are used unnecessarily.
Chris Philp
Q Should we make section 106 part of the main planning application so that the whole thing gets dealt with in an expeditious fashion in one go?
Roy Pinnock: The difficulty with that, from a practical point of view, is that there should be dialogue about what needs to go into that agreement. It is fine to do a first draft, but there is a dialogue in planning applications. Other witnesses will have a contribution on this as well.
Chris Philp
Q Yes, but dialogue can happen in pre-app.
Roy Pinnock: Yes. No plan survives contact with reality. There is always dialogue. There should be dialogue in planning; it is fundamental. I think BPF members value pre-application discussions but recognise that once you are in the mix, having submitted the application, the most important thing is how you project and programme-manage those discussions so that you know when local authority resources are available. The crucial thing is that we preserve the ability to have a sensible dialogue about quality, but drain off some of the issues involving technical things, which can be addressed by model planning obligations and model conditions.
Andrew Dixon: Just to pick up on a couple of points, you asked about the use of PPAs on small sites. They are not normally used on small sites—they are probably too clunky and an inappropriate tool for small sites—but we think there would be value in a standard, very basic, perhaps one-page agreement for covering small sites that would perform the role of some kind of service level agreement against which the applicant can hold the planning authority.
Chris Philp
Q So if I pay a higher fee, then this is a service I get in return?
Andrew Dixon: You could have that range or, whatever fee you pay, you could have an agreed service level that the planning authority has to meet—
Chris Philp
Q Without extra resources, there will not be any extra service, and extra resources mean more money.
Andrew Dixon: No, and in response to your other question, I cannot put a figure on how much more our members would be prepared to pay, but the planning application fee is a fairly small proportion of the total cost of moving forward a planning application. For an improved service, they would be prepared to pay more.
Chris Philp
Excellent.
Ross Murray: Can I take the Committee on a journey from the Greenwich peninsula, with applications for 15,000 homes, to the barn conversion, which is my members’ domain? The concept that someone would instruct lawyers, pay for the authority’s legal department and negotiate a section 106 agreement for a very small, low-value application beforehand is just not practical. There is not time and it will load risk and cost on to the applicant, so I think there are probably circumstances when the section 106 agreement will follow after the determination of the resolution to grant.
Chris Philp
Q Finally, on the question of pre-commencements, are there any particular conditions or parts of the planning process that you think are particularly onerous or absurd and would like to draw the Committee’s attention to? It might be anything to do with great crested newts, for example, without wishing to lead the witnesses.
Andrew Whitaker: No. It is possible to discuss everything. It is right that we have conditions that control various things that are not controlled in the planning application, but as I said before, people should be focusing on what is in the application and what the applicant is going to do to mitigate all the concerns on any subject. We frequently find that the mitigation that is proposed in the planning application itself is ignored. A planning condition is placed on the decision notice and the applicant then resubmits the self-same evidence that they submitted as part of the planning application and it is approved under discharge of planning conditions. That is a total nonsense. It is absolutely right that we take a lot of things into account. A lot of people are engaged in the planning application process.
I am interested in the evidence from your questioning of the other witnesses in respect of whether people pay for a better service and whether they get one. Small applications already have a PPA. Those are statutory timetables within which local authorities need to determine a planning application, and they get a fee for that.
Chris Philp
Q If the LPA breaks that, no consequence flows from it, other than a bad statistic in its report.
Andrew Whitaker: Absolutely, and we have suggested in various documents that a staged payment process of all the planning application fees would be better, because the other thing that your questions draw attention to is that there are lots of stages of a development, and not just the tiny part that is the planning application and/or the conditioning of that planning decision. We are also talking about allocations of site in local plans and in neighbourhood plans—the other part of the Bill—and then pre-application discussions, the application discharge conditions and section 106 agreements. All those things need to be looked at in the round, rather than merely focusing on a tiny little part and asking, “Would you pay more for a planning application fee?”. It is a very simple approach but it does not have a very simple answer.
Roy Pinnock: Just to round that off, where those additional fees are ring-fenced for the planning service—either where they are going into a smaller application so that an officer who might be a specialist in the 15,000-unit scheme, but who is dealing with smaller but no less valuable schemes, is freed up, or where they are funding on a locum basis, or however we need to deal with this problem—we should use that fee. We should ring-fence it and use it to allocate resource. I think the industry would probably support that. You get what you pay for, in that sense, and I think that is more important than the idea that we have a specific set of milestones, which may well be missed, just because that’s life.
We need to know that we have someone dealing with the application, that they have read all the papers and are not going to get switched over, that they understand the ecological mitigation because they have read, unfortunately, the three habitat surveys that have been done, and that they can have that conviction, because it comes from a deep knowledge of these complex schemes. At the moment, we have a real crisis in dealing with these applications, because we do not have the deep knowledge available. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, this is a resource issue.
Ross Murray: May I come back to your point about newts, Chair? Newts and bats are totemic in rural England and Wales in the planning process. I offer you a personal story about an application for a barn conversion. Thieves came and stole the slate roof. There was no roof and, therefore, there were no bats. The planning authority insisted on the bat survey—and there we were, £1,000 later.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Q I possibly take a slightly different view from my colleague of newts and bats. There is some anxiety about the Bill, probably based on a misunderstanding of what the changes on pre-commencement conditions actually involve, so this discussion is very helpful from that point of view. I have constituents who are keen to see local authorities retain the power to ensure that proper surveys are done in relation to wildlife and archaeological heritage. From what I understand from the debate on Second Reading and from what you have said today, the planning authorities will retain the power to impose conditions of that kind; there will just be a change in how that is done to ensure that it involves the developer at an earlier stage and does not necessarily have to happen right at the start, before the whole process has begun.
Mr Whitaker, can you explain, in simple terms, at what stage of the process surveys of that kind can be required? I can then reassure my constituents that the Bill will not prevent an archaeological survey if it is necessary, and that the aim is to ensure that it happens in a way that causes less delay and cost to developments. It is obviously important to ensure that such work is done before a final decision is made on a planning application.
Andrew Whitaker: You are absolutely right and we agree with you. There are many stages in the planning process at which a local planning authority can reflect the community, in many instances, by asking what are the important things that need to be considered as part of the development of a site. They can do that when they allocate the site in a local plan—they can set out various matters that will need to be addressed as part of the development. That can be done by the community themselves at a neighbourhood plan level; it can be done as part of the pre-application and consultation discussion, with the potential applicant, of the issues that the local authority will want to be addressed via the planning application process; and it can then be discussed as part of the planning application process itself, prior to a decision being made. It can also be addressed as part of a planning condition attached to the planning permission.
At all those stages, one can quite legitimately raise any issue that one sees as being key to the planning decision, whether that is archaeology, bats and newts, or any other issue—for example, drainage is often seen as causing delay. Some of those issues will be so critical to whether the development is allowed to go ahead that they should, of course, be addressed very early on in the planning process.
If my local plan allocated a site but said, “This is a difficult site to drain. We will want to see all drainage details sorted out as part of the planning application. We are not going to leave this to a planning condition because it is fundamental to how much development you are allowed to put on the site, depending on your drainage scheme”, the developer would accept that as a constraint and would submit a detailed drainage scheme with their planning application. It is up to the local planning authority to then say, “Okay, this is an important issue for this site. Is the proposed drainage system capable of mitigating the drainage issues and should we approve the planning application on the basis of the scheme submitted with it?” The problem we see is that a lot of local authorities say, “We haven’t got time to do that now. We will make a planning condition that says that, prior to the commencement of the development, we want to agree a drainage system for the site.”
As I have previously explained, frequently, all that happens is that you submit exactly the same drainage system as was submitted with the planning application, or the same mitigation for wildlife, or the same detail that you knew was critical to the determination of your planning application later down the line as a pre-commencement planning condition, rather than it being sorted out as part of the original planning application. We think there are lots and lots of points along the planning journey at which the things that are key to the development of sites can be sorted out. The Bill does not change that at all.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Q I was pleased to hear that answer, Mr Whitaker, because that issue was on my mind as well. You suggested earlier that planners might focus on the essentials of preconditions. We have to be clear about who determines what the essentials are. For example, when is a bat more essential than a ditch? I think you have made it quite clear, and I do not think that those of our environmental colleagues who are listening will feel you are trying to steamroller over the environment. Can you just give me a yes or no?
Andrew Whitaker: Yes.
Roy Pinnock: He is not.
Rebecca Pow
Q You are not. Good. Then I would like to go on to my main question, which I put to Mr Murray first. If the local authority and the developer disagree on a pre-commencement condition, there is no recourse in the Bill other than to reject the application and to then appeal the whole thing. I wonder whether that puts off, in particular, rural folk from applying for planning conditions. Does the system put them off because it is too arduous if they fear being turned down the first time?
Ross Murray: They can be put off at two stages. They can be frightened by the whole prospect of a change of use and actually applying in the first place. In the post-common agricultural policy Brexit world, we know that the rural economy has got to diversify and we have got to reduce our reliance on agriculture, so there has to be development. I think if we have legislation that does not ease that process of the scrutiny of applications, it will put people off. It will also discourage people from actually going through with appeals. I have members who have applied for planning permission, and when the list of conditions comes out, even if it is passed, they know an appeal is not affordable. They are put off by the prospect of a very expensive appeal, because there is the prospect of the inspector opening up the whole principle of the application.
Rebecca Pow
Q They cannot just appeal on one of the small preconditions that was under debate, is that right?
Ross Murray: They cannot appeal just on that, or they are at risk of it being opened up. I must say I think clause 7 is almost there, but it could be bettered if you put in a simplified appeals process. We already have a simplified system for householder or advertisement development, which is eight weeks’ written representations rather than a full-blown appeal. There is a precedent there, and I think that would help.
Rebecca Pow
Q Do you think we would get more houses and more developments as a result of a small tweak like that?
Ross Murray: I think there is absolutely no doubt about that. If we get the legislation right with clause 7 and bring in a proposal like that, I think people will understand that the planning process is fairer, simpler and less costly.
Rebecca Pow
Q Shall we just put that to Mr Dixon? Do you think that would help small and medium-sized developers as well?
Andrew Dixon: Some kind of appeals process on the issue of pre-commencement conditions?
Rebecca Pow
Yes; making it simpler, rather than have to go through everything.
Andrew Dixon: It could be a useful addition to the system. By and large, and perhaps we are being too optimistic, we do not think it is very likely that there will be protracted negotiations about the use of pre-commencement conditions. The aim should be for some of those conversations to be conducted fairly simply and fairly quickly. We are perhaps a bit more optimistic, particularly around smaller applications, about the scope for huge controversy in those conversations. We think the most important thing is that that conversation takes place at an early point in the process.
Roy Pinnock: Just to be clear, the BPF’s perspective is that the clause, as it stands, will not achieve anything—that is to be somewhat bleak. It will leave applicants in the position they are already in, which is that, if they do not like their consent, they can appeal and have a de novo consideration by the Planning Inspectorate, which will take some time. That is very weak as a dialogue and as a negotiating position.
Oliver Colvile
Q Thank you for allowing me to have a second go, Mr Bone.
I have always thought very seriously that we should make sure we have master planning taking place at a very early stage as well, which would mean the local community could get very involved in it. I am also not going to miss an opportunity to talk about ecology and about making sure that we include hedgehog superhighways in the development, too. That is important, because it is something that does not often necessarily feature in the discussion that takes place with developers. It would be a really good thing if we could encourage that, in my view, because hedgehog numbers have declined by 50% over the past 15 years.
Roy Pinnock: Planning application resources have also declined by 50%, which I think was recently noted in the Communities and Local Government Committee’s evidence session on the local plans expert group. That is perhaps unrelated.
Gavin Barwell
Q Thank you, Mr Bone.
There are just three brief points I want to make, picking up on what a number of you have said. The first is a request of Mr Dixon. You referred to the survey you had done of your members. First, can you tell us how many members you had surveyed? Committee members might find it helpful to see a copy of the results of that survey.
Andrew Dixon: We are very happy to submit that information to the Committee. I understand that 108 SME housebuilders took part in that survey, so a not insignificant number.
Gavin Barwell
Q With all due respect to the HBF, I suspect there is a very strong consensus across the House that one of the things we want to do is to encourage more SME builders. If this is particularly a concern to that sector, it is highly relevant.
Mr Murray, if I understood you correctly, I think you were saying that you were not sure that these changes regarding pre-commencement conditions would achieve anything, because dialogue between applicants and planning committees was needed. I put it to you that surely that is what this change will require. Because it is going to stop local authorities imposing pre-commencement conditions without an applicant’s agreement, it will surely create the kind of dialogue you want to see.
Ross Murray: The proof will be in the pudding going forward. My principal concern about clause 7 is the process of appeal afterwards, if those conditions are not acceptable and not viable. Regarding the point we have just discussed, an appeal that focuses purely on the offending commencement condition would be beneficial to everybody, if the dialogue has not resolved it beforehand.
Gavin Barwell
Q Yes. I think we will go on to discuss this when we get to line-by-line consideration, but the difficulty is that when an inspector looks at a condition, it is difficult to judge it in the absence of the overall application, because the council would say that the condition is necessary to make the overall application acceptable. It is difficult to just look at one condition in the absence of the overall package.
My last question is for Mr Pinnock. I understand the point you are making that there will still be an issue if this Bill goes through as it stands. I want to challenge you on what you said, that people would be in no better a position at all. At the moment, as an applicant, if you do not like the conditions attached to your application, you can appeal. I would argue that there is a beneficial step here in that, now, authorities will not be able to attach conditions that you do not agree to. The authority would have to feel so strongly about one of these pre-commencement conditions as to turn down permission for the whole application. Do you not think that it is at least going to reduce the number of cases where there is a problem, even if it will not eliminate the problem altogether?
Roy Pinnock: It may do, but it is an uncertain position. The issue for investors and also for communities is about how we create a more certain pathway to the number of homes that need to be delivered, and the amount of supported development and infrastructure. It will stop local authorities granting planning permission. That is what clause 7 does at the moment, and the BPF is wary of any measure that arguably stops authorities granting consent. There is a real risk that it is in the “too difficult” box already, and in terms of that dialogue and that negotiation, the authority will just sit back and say, “We’ve got a load of other applications that have come in, and we’ve got to meet our deadlines on that. This one’s just gone straight into the ‘we’re under a statutory restriction to grant consent’ box, so come back to us in a few months’ time when you want to agree our pre-commencement condition,” which, probably, is what would happen. We would still have the delays of discharging the pre-commencement conditions.
A targeted, fair system that allows authorities to stand by their concerns and have those adjudicated by the planning inspector on the same basis as the section 73 consideration that is undertaken at the moment, which has opened out where a condition goes to other points of the application. Quite fairly, it is broadened out. If the majority could be dealt with by written representations, that would provide a real release valve.
Also, as I say, the key thing about any legal change is that it drives a cultural shift, rather than necessarily being something people rely on. The BPF’s view is that this must have teeth and must be speedy and deliver the ultimate objective of certainty for everyone, in order to be a meaningful provision.
Jim McMahon
Q This follows on from the Minister’s point about how you compile an application with conditions to make it acceptable to the local community and the design elements within that locality. We have heard a lot about bats and newts, and a bit about hedgehogs too. There have probably been more discussions on those than on people and community. I want to explore a bit more the points you were making about the type of conditions being put forward and how reasonable or unreasonable they were perceived to be. Let us use the example of landscaping, which has been used to say, “This is how ridiculous the system is.” Following on from the Minister’s point, the idea that landscaping—planting a few plants here and there—will somehow delay an important development could be the difference between whether an application is acceptable to the local community or not. If a development is alongside your house, the screening and treatment of that could be critical to whether you support it.
Equally, the idea of phasing elements, whereby some conditions could be delayed or brought further into the application—drainage was mentioned—was predicated on the view that costing delays mount up, and that it is better to crack on, get the site done and resolve those issues later. The counter-challenge is that if you are applying for plant equipment or site security, but you cannot get an agreement on drainage, surely there is an inherent cost with that proposal. I want to challenge that to try to get some balance. We are in danger of going from one extreme to the other, and the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
Andrew Whitaker: I do not think we are. We are obviously talking about something different. We appreciate that some conditions on a planning permission will have to be pre-commencement. They are right at the heart of the application, and all types of different conditions may well be at the heart of a particular application. We are not suggesting that all landscape conditions cannot be pre-commencement.
You are absolutely right that in some cases—few, I would suggest—the landscaping proposals might well be the fundamental determining issue of that application. In others, it will be other things. The whole point of this proposal is to have that dialogue so that applicants to local planning authorities can say, “Is this really fundamental to you granting me a planning consent, given what I have already put into my planning application proposal?”
To use your example, if I have already screened the neighbour using whatever it was we agreed at the pre-application discussion, it is there as part of the plans of my planning application, and all you need to do is grant me consent in accordance with the plans that I have already submitted to you. You do not need an unnecessary condition requiring further landscaping details to be submitted.
If we have that discussion, I can point out to you that I have already submitted what I believe to be an adequate landscaping scheme. You, as the local planning authority, must then tell me why that is not adequate, whether I could address it through amended plans and all sorts of things, rather than just using the potato stamp—I think we heard that term earlier—of saying, “There is a pre-commencement landscape condition. Let’s sort this out later.” That leads to the delay, but we could have had a discussion about it as part of the planning application or as part of the determination process.
Andrew Dixon: I mentioned landscaping, so I am keen to clarify that point. I was not for a second suggesting that landscaping is not a proper consideration within a planning application. Above all, I stress that we do not see the provisions as a means to exclude certain considerations from the planning process. This should be about rationalising when certain information is needed and the optimum point in the process for it to be submitted, so that the development can come forward as speedily and efficiently as possible. If we get that right, the gains are huge.
Roy Pinnock: I have one point to add. I have sympathy for authorities, in that they will raise the issue of monitoring. They can generally see, when site operations start, that they will receive pre-commencement discharges anyway. Sorry to hit on this point again, but it goes back to resourcing. They will say, “It is just too difficult for us to monitor, after commencement, what is going on at the site, so we need it to be pre-commencement to create certainty.” We always have to be sympathetic to real life, boots-on-the-ground planning where we understand what is happening with these sites.
Some thought needs to take place between the Government, the sector and the commercial sector as to how we can assist the process and set the right stage. There is a preoccupation with many things. There will be a genuine concern that that trigger is missed, that you then cannot evict people and that it is a weak trigger. Therefore, getting it right, and having examples, guidance and model conditions from the Government is important.
The Chair
We will have to end this session. We could have gone on for a lot longer, but 10.30 am is our limit. I thank all the witnesses. The conversation we have had today is most helpful, and undoubtedly will inform and help Members as we progress the Bill. Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Tony Newman, Duncan Wilson, Angus Walker and Hugh Ellis gave evidence.
The Chair
We now come to the second panel of witnesses. I refer Members to page 28 of the brief.
We will hear oral evidence from the Local Government Association, Historic England, National Infrastructure Planning Association and the Town and Country Planning Association. For this session we have until 11.25 am. I welcome the witnesses. Could you please introduce yourselves?
Councillor Newman: I am Councillor Tony Newman representing the Local Government Association. I am a member of the LGA’s Towns and Environment Board and also leader of the London Borough of Croydon.
Duncan Wilson: I am Duncan Wilson, chief executive of Historic England.
Hugh Ellis: I am Hugh Ellis, interim chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association.
Angus Walker: I am Angus Walker, board chair of the National Infrastructure Planning Association.
The Chair
Does the shadow Minister want to go first on this one? We have already done declarations of interest so the Minister has made it clear, councillor, that he is going to be on his best behaviour.
Councillor Newman: Likewise.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Thank you and welcome everyone. We are going to continue the discussion on pre-commencement conditions. It would be helpful to hear your views on whether they are overused, whether they do in fact cause delays in the planning process and whether you have evidence to support that.
Councillor Newman: If you are looking at the whole of clause 7 of the Bill—the conditions and the pre-commencement—best practice is where there is a strong, well-resourced local government planning department, to use traditional language, working in partnership with developers. I know that is a view the British Property Federation share: two thirds of them support the LGA’s view that we should see well-resourced planning departments. The whole perspective of what I am seeing in the Bill looks very much like a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach—another layer of red tape. If you look at the actual outcomes in terms of local government and planning, nine out of 10 permissions are given, and 470,000 permissions are already granted for homes up and down the land that await development for various reasons.
I am not saying there is not room for improvement from an LGA perspective and from a planning perspective on how you conduct pre-commencement conversations or any other approach. There is always room for improvement, which I think the starting point of the clause—this is a huge issue that the LGA needs to address. There is a collective issue about how we genuinely work better.
On best practice, I am not here specifically to talk about Croydon, but there is an awful lot of development happening there. As the Minister would recognise, where there are strong relationships between a council and the developers, it is all about taking a strategic view—what is a sustainable position and what do you want to achieve for the wider community?—and coming up with really exciting plans that are actually happening. Where development becomes mired in red tape and becomes a legal battle, more often than not the end result, as we have seen in my borough in the past, is a piece of land that sits empty for years while legal wrangling takes place. This does feel like unnecessary red tape, I think.
Duncan Wilson: On behalf of Historic England, our primary concern is with archaeological investigation pre-commencement conditions. Essentially, we believe the current system works quite well. We understand that developers need certainty and the system provides for conditions relating to investigation of sensitive sites. Only about 2% of planning applications are covered by these archaeological pre-commencement conditions. Most developers want to know what is there.
I go back quite a way at English Heritage in a former existence and I remember the Rose theatre, where there was a lot of messing around that did not really suit the developer and did not necessarily provide the best archaeological outcome either. That was because there was no clear archaeology pre-condition. Afterwards PPG 16 was introduced and has worked quite well, we believe.
We are more than happy to discuss any perceived problems with the system or any real problems with the system. We are not actually aware that archaeology in particular is causing those problems. We think, on balance, the system as it exists works pretty well for developers because it is based on an investigation of what is actually there and an assessment of the risks. That relies on local authority expertise and resources to help make that assessment, and we have our part to play in that too. I suppose it would all depend on the regulations that came with the Bill, which we do not yet know about, as to whether archaeology was mentioned as something where a pre-commencement condition would normally be appropriate in a very small number of sites. In a sense, we would have to await that.
Hugh Ellis: From our point of view, the concern about conditions is that they are fairly crucial in delivering quality outcomes. The short answer to your question about whether we have evidence that conditions result in delay is that we do not. What we do have is a growing concern that planning has to strike the right balance between the efficiency of the system for applicants and outcomes for people. The evidence about outcomes is a bit more worrying, particularly in relation to things like quality design, flood risk and various other issues, which are often secured through conditions.
The reasons for that are complicated. The discussion about resources, though, is overwhelmingly crucial, because that really is about the expertise of setting conditions, ensuring that they deliver strong outcomes and, ultimately, ensuring that they deliver the objective of sustainable development in the round. The question is: how does this measure help us with that wider endeavour of planning and delivering sustainable development?
Angus Walker: I also cannot provide you with any evidence this morning. Indeed, my expertise is more in the national infrastructure planning system where all this will not apply, but I can see that there may be one or two unintended consequences of this clause when put into operation. It is clearly designed to eliminate the lazy application of conditions where the survey, as you heard earlier, is already in the application and all that sort of thing. I can see situations where more planning permissions are refused because the applicant and the planning authority cannot agree on whether to impose a condition. I can also see conditions being recast as not being pre-commencement conditions but as having the same effect later on—pre-operation conditions, if you like—so I am not sure whether this will work, essentially.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Do you think that the measures in the Bill change the balance of power more towards the developer, and what are the risks with that? We have not yet talked this morning of the risks, particularly in clause 7.
Hugh Ellis: Pursuing that point, it is an issue about whether you end up with a planning system whose primary purpose is the efficient allocation of units or a wider endeavour around place-making and inclusion. Although it seems like a good idea because it is difficult to defend inefficiency or apparent inefficiency when it is thrown up, really good place-making requires good dialogue with developers, but also strong control from local government and an empowered local government to ensure that community visions are truly delivered.
The system has been weakened—permitted development is one example of that—and the Bill needs to strike the right balance. I suppose that if it went forward, the safeguard would be, and would need to be in the wider system, the place-making objective, otherwise we would find a series of outcomes that potentially have very long-term and serious impacts on everything from public health to wider economic efficiency.
Councillor Newman: I agree with that. As I said earlier, the Bill would potentially build in a more confrontational approach, and we would lose that ability to have a place-making and sustainability overview of a development, along with the benefits and perhaps future development to come.
Somebody mentioned permitted development. We have certainly seen the flip-side of that. Where permitted development has sometimes let rip, we have seen poor-quality provision of homes—perhaps people do not have any choice in a market such as London. Permitted development has proved not to be the answer. At one point, I think, half the permitted development in London was happening in Croydon. We got an article 4 direction for Croydon town centre, and we were able to protect what is now thriving business use and office space, so permitted development was not only delivering poor-quality planning outcomes but threating our local economy by damaging a space that is now at a premium for investment in jobs.
All that would reinforce my view that you need a holistic approach where possible. That is not to be naïve—there will always be confrontation in the system, but to build it in at the start seems to me to be the wrong approach, and in the LGA’s view it is an unnecessary further layer of legislation or red tape in the process.
Duncan Wilson: It seems to me that there are two issues. One is the imposition of unnecessary conditions and the other is the time taken to discharge conditions. I have been on the other side of the table too as, in effect, the developer of a number of major heritage schemes in London, and inasmuch as we had any trouble, it was to do with the time taken to discharge conditions, which was largely related to the people and resource within the local authority—it is simply a matter of getting people up to the place to tick the box and see that we had done what was required of us. The same applies to a whole load of other things such as building regulations.
On the imposition of unnecessary conditions, the local authority has to be reasonable already—if it is felt that unnecessary conditions are being imposed, it is challengeable. I worry that the proposed new system will lead the local authority to have to make a choice early on as to whether it wants to impose a condition that would be challenged—the application could be turned down and the condition challenged again. That whole system would surely take longer than arguing about the condition and determining whether to impose it at the beginning.
Angus Walker: In line with the other speakers, I think that the planning system is a balance. Although economic growth is important and development contributes to that, it still has to be in the right context and have regard to social and environmental factors.
I can see that, if an applicant and a local planning authority cannot agree on a condition, in some cases the planning authority will refuse permission, which may be appealed and then allowed. In others, the authority will agree the application without the condition in it, even though it might have been one that ought to have been imposed. In answer to your question, it seems to me that there is a slight increase in the balance being weighed towards applicants by the measure.
Chris Philp
Q Good morning. One of the speakers briefly touched on this. What is the panellists’ opinion about whether planning departments in local authorities are adequately resourced to deal with the kind of issues we are discussing—pre-commencement conditions and the determination of applications?
Councillor Newman: Local government has taken more than its fair share of efficiency savings in the past few years and has faced serious cuts. Planning has to be properly resourced: the LGA would put forward the figure of £150 million a year for the planning department, which is effectively subsidised by the council tax payer. The British Property Federation—two thirds of it anyway—supports the view that they would rather see a contribution that meant it was properly resourced and not subsidised by the taxpayer, and there are always issues around recruitment. Many planning departments work well but are stretched to the limit. There are extra pressures and other challenges in growth areas. I do not just want to sit here and say that more resources are needed, but local government is operating on tight budgets after year-on-year decreases in our budgets.
Chris Philp
Q Will other members of the panel comment on the resourcing question: do you think local authority planning departments are adequately resourced bearing in mind the demands being placed on them?
Duncan Wilson: In relation to archaeology, it very much depends on the archaeological advice rather than the planning department. Some local authorities have that advice, but in the past few years there has been a reduction of around 30% in the volume of archaeological advice directly available to local authorities. There is no straight-line relationship between the quality of the advice, its timeliness and the number of hours that the local authority has, but obviously there is a relationship. There is also the question of conservation offices, which is another specialist area where there has been a significant decline in local authority resources. It would be counterintuitive to suggest that there is no relationship between the volume of resources available to the local authority in terms of its planning department and conservation and archaeological advice, and the timeliness of turning casework around, but it is not quite as simple as that.
Hugh Ellis: I am trying to choose my words carefully based on research we have just carried out on the production of local plans. The research showed that planning teams had fallen below the critical mass capable of delivering a local plan effectively in the rural areas that we looked at that were at severe risk of flooding. In some of those authorities we visited, we found 1.2 full-time equivalent members of staff were working on a local plan process, which I found quite shocking. There is no fixed limit for how many people you need in a planning department, but minimum service levels are a critical issue, both establishing them effectively and resourcing them properly.
What struck me about your discussion with previous witnesses was that, while fees could be increased—that is an option—there are low-demand areas where not many applications are submitted. Those applications would not attract much fee income but would require significant planning services, particularly in those areas trying to deal with the aftermath of significant severe weather and flood risk. Cumbria is one of those places.
There is a crisis in the planning service—it is not everywhere because some urban areas have sustained resource—that overwhelmingly affects efficiency and the quality of neighbourhood planning service that the community receives. That is probably the single biggest thing for us as an organisation presented to us by applicants and communities about the state of the modern local planning process in England.
Angus Walker: I do not think there is any question that a large number of local authorities are not adequately resourced in their planning departments.
Chris Philp
Sorry, can you say that again?
Angus Walker: A large number of local authorities—perhaps not all—are not adequately resourced.
Chris Philp
Q The previous group of witnesses, who by and large represented the property development industry, appeared unanimously to support the idea of paying higher planning fees for some kind of guaranteed service level—for a determination within a particular time. If that target was not met, the extra planning fee might be refunded. Do panel members think that that might be one way of getting extra financial resources into local authority planning departments? If one proposed that idea, the Chancellor would probably say—I am putting words in his mouth—“The danger is that you put the extra money into the planning department, and the council reduces its subsidy, to spend it on something else, so the total amount of money stays the same; it just comes from applicants, rather than the subsidy.” If you do think extra planning fees for a guaranteed service is a good idea, how do you prevent existing resource being diverted to another part of the council’s activities? I suppose that is a question for Councillor Newman.
Councillor Newman: As you alluded to, if there was a different planning fee, there would be some relationship with, or expectation relating to, the outcome. I think what you are asking is whether it would be ring-fenced. There is a way of doing that without getting into the ring-fenced budget piece. The other position on that, the LGA would say—I welcome the question in that sense—is to have locally set planning fees. That would involve people who know an area, know what the demand is, and know what the recruitment issues are for the planning department in one area, vis-à-vis another. Then it would be for the local authority to justify both the fees it charges and the outcomes of the service it offers. Locally set planning fees and, related to them, performance indicators on how the process works—that is something that should be explored.
Chris Philp
Q Would you support the specific idea of extra planning fees conditional on service delivery?
Councillor Newman: I have to be careful what I support. I represent LGA policy here. There is a principle in the line of questioning you are asking. I think there is a way forward around locally set planning fees related to an expectation of the service one gets. That would be a step forward in terms of localism, and democratic accountability locally for the performance of the planning department.
Chris Philp
Q Do you accept that there is a danger that if you allowed local authorities to charge higher planning fees, you would at the same time have to stop them from simply diverting existing financial resources elsewhere, in order to make sure that you got an increase in total resource level in the planning department?
Councillor Newman: I do not think it would be beyond somebody to construct the model, but the key test would be the outcome—whether the planning process was working well, or was speeded up, depending on what the local challenge was.
Chris Philp
Q Can I invite other panel members to comment on that exchange?
Duncan Wilson: In the Historic England context, clearly the issue of hypothecation is really important. My colleague has said more or less what I would want to say on that. However, it is probably worth noting that Historic England has operated something called enhanced advisory services for the last year or so on more or less that basis. If it is worth your while as a developer, you can buy a tighter outcome, in terms of deadlines and delivery, and a more detailed assessment in relation to listed buildings and scheduled monuments. That has been introduced with the encouragement of the development industry, on the whole, and the British Property Federation.
Chris Philp
Q Have you found them coming forward and saying that they would like to pay these higher planning fees?
Duncan Wilson: Exactly. It can be consensual, because the cost of a planning application, certainly in the sorts of services that we provide in relation to listed buildings, is a tiny percentage of a major development project.
Hugh Ellis: I would add that there are two problems here; it is partly the planning service in local authorities, but I would not want us to completely ignore the fact that there is also a crisis in the number of planners. There is direct investment in planning schools that we also need to get right. There is a major recruitment problem in local government, not just in being able to afford planners, but in finding them. We need to take a wider step back and look at how we bring planners through the process. It is also about the messages you send to young people about why planning is important and why it might be a career that they want to take up. That is important.
Chris Philp
Q One of the challenges is that local authorities lose planning experts to private practice, because private practice can afford to pay more, and because local authorities are very stretched, so it is a slightly stressful and harassed environment to work in. The resource issue might partly address the brain drain to private practice.
Angus Walker: Undoubtedly, if you pay more for dedicated resources, you will get a better service. My concern would be that those who made applications and had not paid any more would get a worse service as a consequence. Maybe the diversion of funds would be a consequence of that. It would not necessarily be more money in the system that everyone would benefit from.
Chris Philp
Q Of course, you would still have the statutory time targets, and if you increased total resource levels, it may most directly benefit those paying more, but it might have wider benefits as well, even to applicants who were not paying the extra fees.
Angus Walker: It is possible, but in my field, it is not financial deadlines—we have time deadlines in some areas, and not in others. The ones that have a decision required, statutorily, in a certain length of time get their decisions within that time; the others probably take longer than they otherwise would have done, because more of the resources are devoted to making those decisions on time.
Helen Hayes
Q I have a question for Councillor Newman, and perhaps Hugh Ellis as well. Have either of you undertaken any assessment of the likely additional burden to local planning authorities from the new proposed process in the Bill? Supplementary to that, and following the discussion that was just had about the possibility of applicants paying for an enhanced level of service, might a better system be for local authorities to be able, on a transparent and consultative basis, to charge the full cost of their development management service through fees? One concern I have about the proposal that developers be able to buy in an enhanced level of service is that it is potentially quite difficult for local authorities to manage fluctuating demand, in relation to individual applications. Surely what we actually want is for local authorities to be properly resourced to do the job well for everybody, irrespective of who the applicant is.
Councillor Newman: We do want to be properly resourced anyway, as a starting point. There is a £150 million tax subsidy going in; that would absolutely be the starting point for me, but I still think that this is worth exploring, in terms of the particular recruitment issues we have, because there will never be agreement on what “properly resourced” would be. That is why I would not rule out looking at—I do not like the word “enhanced”. There is something around fast-track and something around some major developments perhaps requiring more resource than other developments, but there is a discussion to be had. One way or another, we have to get more resource into a system that is under-resourced financially, and where in many areas, as we have heard, there are pressures regarding recruitment and staff coming forward.
On the other question you asked, I know the LGA is submitting written evidence later in the week. I have not got figures in front of me to evidence the extra burden, but I think the extra work this would potentially bring round is significant. As colleagues here have said, you could see more refusals, and the whole thing could become mired in a more confrontational process that, by definition, will set planning applications back, rather than them being, where possible, resolved, sometimes in a mature manner.
Hugh Ellis: Just to reiterate, planning is a key service with vital outputs for communities; in that sense, it needs to be resourced properly, and certainly at a minimum level. It also worries me that a lot of this resource in fees would go into development management, leaving open the question of how you fund the rest of the planning service, which is, in some senses, the most important part for us—the development plan, neighbourhood planning and master planning process, and getting it right up front.
On the idea that applicants would pay a fee base for a particular service, and that that would somehow sustain the planning service, there are some real questions to answer. It could be part of the answer—that is absolutely true—but I return to the point, on section 106 and the community infrastructure levy, that there is already, in pure taxation terms, a slightly regressive element to planning: you get most in high-demand areas. If this was another measure that led to that, it would be challenging, partly because the planning system has to deal with all sorts of varied issues. The examples coming in from Cumbria really reinforce that. They need very powerful local plans; how are they to pay for them if the predominant form of income generation is fees from applications that they do not get?
Helen Hayes
Q I have a further question for Duncan Wilson. You mentioned concerns about archaeology. It seems there have been indications from the Government that some assurance might be provided around the question of archaeology, and we will wait to see what comes forward in that regard. Are there other areas of heritage about which you have potential concerns relating to pre-commencement planning conditions?
Duncan Wilson: Less severe ones. A number of concerns were raised in the context of the Housing and Planning Act that were perhaps more significant than in relation to this particular clause, other than for archaeology. Our concerns on brownfield land, design, massing and density are not really centre stage, as I understand, with pre-commencement conditions here.
Kit Malthouse
Q Obviously, the Government are trying to strengthen neighbourhood plans in the Bill. Do you think the provisions they have in there at the moment are likely to eliminate the erratic decision making from the Planning Inspectorate that we have seen with regard to neighbourhood plans?
Hugh Ellis: They go some way. The relationship between neighbourhood plans and local plans in law is still really quite problematic. There is a direction of travel question about whether or not we end up with a full coverage of neighbourhood plans and in some sense an idea that they might replace local plans. That is talked about but it is important to get that right.
There are a range of challenges. For example, the neighbourhood planning process is producing neighbourhood plans of variable coverage, predominantly in areas with the social and economic capital to prepare them. In law, neighbourhood plans escape a number of the placemaking duties that the wider planning system has applied; those on good design, for example, in law, do not apply to neighbourhood planning but do apply to local plans. I think these measures try, do they not, to fill some of those loopholes in relation to the status of an unadopted neighbourhood plan as it comes through the process, which might help solve part of that appeal process.
For us there is still a wider issue about how the system will work as a whole and the friction that is inevitably produced by neighbourhood plans coming forward in advance of a local plan; the different legal status between the two plans; and ultimately the adoption of a neighbourhood plan as part of the development plan. Part of this debate could very usefully settle what the vision is for neighbourhood planning. Is the idea that the neighbourhood plan ultimately becomes the key lodestone of the English planning process with local plans doing something else, or are local plans going to remain intact? That is a very important question going forward, because many neighbourhood plans are not dealing with the full range of placemaking issues that we need to resolve. That is perfectly fine because communities have a measure of choice about what they do with them, but in relation to good design, flood risk and climate change, for example, those issues are not well represented in the content of neighbourhood plans. So, this is a step; I am not sure it resolves the full range of legal issues that we are confronted with between neighbourhood and local plan status.
Kit Malthouse
Q So in your view, even if this provision goes through and a post-examination neighbourhood plan is given full weight in a planning application, in the absence of an approved local plan, do you still think we are likely to see neighbourhood plans effectively upended?
Hugh Ellis: You can still see neighbourhood plans upended because of the tensions that exist about whether we have a plan-led system, which is probably another three-hour debate. In a nutshell, the difficulty we have at the moment is that because of the tension between the national planning policy framework presumption in policy in favour of development and the legal presumption in favour of the development plan, you can find circumstances where a brand-new development plan can be rendered out of date because of its performance on five-year land supply—literally within months of adoption, rendering the entire framework of housing policy in that plan out of date. If they have adopted neighbourhood plans in support of that plan, then communities can quite understandably feel confused about that. That is a wider issue about the status of whether we have a plan-led system. For us, that balance needs some attention, to say the least.
Kit Malthouse
Q But if we do have a plan-led system, which seems to be the way that we are going, would you therefore support greater strength being given to local authorities’ ability to defend the five-year land supply?
Hugh Ellis: There is a need to end that uncertainty and it seems to me that the core issue—very crudely and very quickly—is that local development plans allocate five-year land supply but have very little influence over delivering it. The issue about joining those two things together is about other measures in play: local authorities playing a much stronger role with housing companies, and as lead and master developers. That is the way to resolve it. But the position at the moment, whereby allocations can be made and then overturned because of a deliverability issue that the local authority has no control over, needs attention. Otherwise, what happens—five-year land supply is crucial, by the way, to deliver the housing we need—is that the system becomes discredited in the public’s mind, particularly when neighbourhood plans are being overturned as a result of it.
Kit Malthouse
Q Given that the overall objective perhaps ought to be certainty for resident, council and developer alike about what is allowed where over time, if you can get to a situation where you have a post-inspection neighbourhood plan and an approved local plan—in other words, you have got two of the pillars in place—with a five-year land supply available, do you think that the role of the planning inspector in that circumstance should be diminished or not?
Hugh Ellis: That is an attractive proposition, but it is extremely difficult to see how you could remove an individual developer’s appeal rights without engaging a whole other legal debate. Whether you want to balance legal rights in the planning system between communities and applicants is a very interesting question.
Councillor Newman: I certainly would not want a position where neighbourhood plans were seen to override a local plan. I don’t think that is what you are suggesting, but the local plan does enable strategic and sustainable planning, in terms of health provision, schools or whatever, and a neighbourhood plan, by definition, is coming from a different starting point. The LGA would want to see local government having, in relation to the local plan, more powers to agree, for example, where homes should be, when they are not coming forward. That takes me back to the nearly half a million planning permissions granted that have not been acted upon as we sit here today.
As you said, it is about credibility in the system, so that the public do not start believing that their neighbourhood plan is going to have no impact or will probably be overridden, either by the local plan or by developers going to appeal. I do not have the answer sitting here, but I think it has to be about a system that has credibility—where people believe that if they make representations to their council or their Member of Parliament, although it may not always come out how they would want, the system is responsive, and respects their—there are tensions in this.
Kit Malthouse
Q On that point, is it possible for a developer to obtain a large permission in an area, and then not develop it out, and then challenge a refusal on another site in that area on the basis that a five-year land supply has not been fulfilled? That happens, right?
Hugh Ellis: Yes.
Kit Malthouse
Q That does happen. Therefore, by being patient, they are able to blow a hole in the land supply and get a permission that they otherwise would not have done, and double up.
Hugh Ellis: I would not want to comment on their motivations, but as a strict matter of policy and law, yes, absolutely that is what can happen.
Duncan Wilson: On behalf of Historic England, we do get engaged with neighbourhood plans when we are asked for advice and expertise, and it has been pretty positive, in the sense that it gives the local community a voice in a system that can seem, frankly, rather arcane otherwise. Where that has happened, we have found that neighbourhood plans have been quite strategically drawn and they have not fulfilled people’s worst fears, which were that they would be very narrowly drawn.
Angus Walker: I suppose it would be interesting to know, as Mr Ellis said, whether the intention is that the whole country will eventually be covered by neighbourhood plans. The resourcing issues that were raised earlier would be a lot worse if it were reliant on parish councils and neighbourhood forums to produce all these plans.
Kit Malthouse
Q Presumably the Bill is designed to provide that incentive. The incentive is that if you have a neighbourhood plan and it is strengthened you are more likely to have certainty about what is going to be developed in your area, so if you are bothered about development you should have a neighbourhood plan. I am interested in what you say about local plans. We hear that neighbourhood plans deliver more housing than was otherwise predicted. Is that your experience?
Hugh Ellis: It is. I think the Government produced some statistics about that. It has been one of the really positive surprises about the neighbourhood planning process. On housing, there are positive ways forward. On whether or not neighbourhood plans offer the full range of issues that planning needs to cover in a local area, the evidence we have is that they probably do not. But then, that is not what they are being set up to do. That is why I ask, is the ambition for them to be a kind of replacement for the local plan, or not? In our view, you need both. Neighbourhood plans are great at articulating community aspiration inside the local plan framework. When both work together very powerfully, that can be a very strong framework for a community.
The Chair
Q I just want to clarify for the Committee what Mr Malthouse was asking. If I understood right, Mr Malthouse was asking: if there is a neighbourhood plan, a local plan and an established five-year land supply, should there be a restriction on the right of developers to appeal?
The Chair
I was not quite sure whether the witnesses had answered that. Would everyone just say yes or no to that?
Hugh Ellis: I will try and be a bit clearer. In policy terms, you could probably strengthen that issue, but a legal restriction on an applicant’s right to appeal has always been in the legal territory of impossible because of engages of the legislation. You could certainly tighten the policy framework, but an absolute restriction on appeal is probably impossible in law.
Oliver Colvile
Q Thank you, gentlemen, for coming to see us. What a delight, Councillor Newman, to have you here, for the simple reason that I was the Tory party agent in Mitcham in the 1980s when Nicholas Ridley introduced the whole local plan process in the first place. I have been very interested in following all this.
You have talked quite a bit about resources. I am pretty aware that my council in Plymouth, for which I am the Member of Parliament, has similar issues. However, we have a university and a planning school. To my mind, councils could have a much closer relationship with their planning schools and try to use some of those resources. Is that something that you have looked at?
Councillor Newman: Periodically but, to be completely frank, not enough. As the LGA, and perhaps as local councils, sometimes we do not sell the exciting career that local planning can be for many people. Many people who are part of it stay for many years and have a good career. There is more work to be done on how we market a career in the local planning department and some other roles in local government.
There are other pressures. If you are in London, it is not about marketing the career. Social workers, for example, cannot afford to live in many localities. In London, the question is whether people can afford to live in the area where they might want to come to work. It is not just a single issue. I would encourage the sort of practice you describe in Plymouth.
Oliver Colvile
Q It seems to my mind that students, I keep being told, find it very difficult to make ends meet. They have tuition fee loans and all those kinds of things. It would actually be a way of trying to get them to have some practical experience in the planning world. Similarly, local archaeology people come to see me, some of whom are doing things at the university. Is that a resource that you might think about using and looking at?
Duncan Wilson: There are certainly supply-side issues with archaeology over the whole country in relation not just to local authority advice, but to the large number of archaeologists we will need to fulfil the demand for archaeology arising from major infrastructure projects. It would be an oversimplification to say that that is just an aggregate supply of archaeologists. The higher education sector is not necessarily producing archaeologists with exactly the right kind of skills to deal with the different kinds of problems that archaeology in Britain throws up. More fieldwork is rather an important issue in that context.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Colvile, but I am very conscious that we have limited time and three people want to ask questions. I will bring in John Mann, because I know he will be brief.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q How many of these 500,000 unmet house planning consents are in neighbourhood development plan areas? Does anyone know?
Councillor Newman: I do not, but we will write to you rapidly with that information.
John Mann
Q Nobody knows. What is the increase from what the position was in the same areas covered by neighbourhood plans, in terms of proposed new housing units in areas covered by neighbourhood development plans?
Angus Walker: I do not know the answer to that, but I think the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Bill that, of those who had an increase, the average increase was 10%. That does not give how many there were overall.
John Mann
Q You said that the five-year land supply for housing was critical for housing development. How do you know that?
Hugh Ellis: It is an element of it. To be clear, the problem with the delivery of housing in this country is not primarily the planning system; it is development, but five-year supply is important.
John Mann
Q Correct. Am I right in saying that every neighbourhood development plan, in order to be in any way legal, has to incorporate new housing development?
Hugh Ellis: The position is that it has to be in conformity with the development plan, if there is one, and the NPPF, which means that it has to recognise local housing need and the five-year land supply to go with it.
Hon. Members
No.
Hugh Ellis: The general view, when neighbourhood plans were being developed, was that they could not plan for less housing—which is sometimes how people tried to use them—than the local development plan had allocated, so there is a kind of floor. They certainly can plan, and have planned, for more housing than the local development plan has allocated.
John Mann
Q Is there a reason why English Heritage has not tried to initiate neighbourhood development plans using major historic buildings, such as cathedrals, as the core basis for defining urban communities?
Duncan Wilson: As I said before, we do engage with neighbourhood development plans, but normally on request, rather than proactive consultation on every neighbourhood development plan. When we do engage, we certainly encourage proper consideration of the historical character of the area and how development can sit alongside that. Cathedral cities are a really important subset of that group.
John Mann
Q My final question: is not the strength of neighbourhood development plans also their weakness? The strength is that at the moment a plan lends itself perfectly to villages with parish councils, which can easily, and very ably and effectively, localise the planning process—in my area virtually every parish council has or is developing a neighbourhood development plan, all of them increasing the housing supply significantly, and they will be delivering on that housing supply significantly over the next five years—whereas the weaknesses are in urban areas, where defining what the community is actually requires a bit of original thinking; otherwise everything simply becomes one urban mass. Is that not the opportunity, be it for the English Heritages, the good planners or enlightened councils, to get urbanised neighbourhood planning to involve communities in exactly the way that villages have hugely successfully involved vast numbers of people in the development of the existing neighbourhood plans that have been agreed, or are currently rolling forward?
Councillor Newman: I think you could have more urban neighbourhood plans, but I would want to see them still sitting with the overarching plan in an urban area—such as the one I am very familiar with, Croydon—to be the local plan. As we have learned from mistakes in the past—although I know this is not what you are suggesting—we should not just focus on increasing housing numbers without looking at the sustainability of the community in terms of health provision, school provision, transport links and everything else. Much as we need new homes, it should not just be a numbers game that leaves us in the same place we were in the ’70s.
Duncan Wilson: In relation to our historic towns, yes, I agree that neighbourhood plans would be and sometimes are a good way of crystallising that discussion, but it is really important that the areas around towns are brought into consideration too. Otherwise, you have a plan for an historic town and all the housing gets pushed out to the periphery, without a proper strategic consideration of how that relates to the historic town in terms of transport links, public spaces, infrastructure or design.
Hugh Ellis: In a way, the critical flaw in neighbourhood planning is the neighbourhood forum model. There has to be an issue around making that accountable. The differences in neighbourhood planning between an accountable parish or town council and an unaccountable forum were always pretty stark. It was always unclear where that ended up. There would probably be more enthusiasm for urban neighbourhood planning if that problem could be resolved.
Rebecca Pow
Q Will the changes proposed to the pre-commencement conditions leave enough flexibility to deal with things that local communities are really concerned about? In my area of Taunton, the big issues are all about what Mr Ellis referred to: design quality, the look of the houses, vernacular character, flood resilience. Can we get all that cleared through the changes proposed, or are we relying utterly on neighbourhood plans to do that? Are there enough teeth for that to be taken into account when the planning consents are given?
Hugh Ellis: Although there is conflicting evidence in planning, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that the design quality of domestic housing in this country is one of the great lost opportunities.
Rebecca Pow
Q And it is one of the big bugbears locally, when you talk to people, in all neighbourhood planning.
Hugh Ellis: We are capable of delivering so much better. That would require two things: a sense that planning is part of the solution to these problems and not always part of the problem, and a fairly robust local planning process. I think it would also include a greater emphasis on good design as an outcome in planning.
Rebecca Pow
Q But where would you put it? In the pre-commencements?
Hugh Ellis: You would need to think about it right from the top. The content of the NPPF on design is actually quite good, but I do not see it being enforced, particularly, through plan-making.
Gavin Barwell
Q I have two quick questions for Councillor Newman. You felt that the planning conditions measures were a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I want to get a sense of the size of the nut. Among the previous witnesses, there was a consensus that the use of pre-commencement conditions has been growing over time. Does the LGA share that view?
Councillor Newman: As I said at the start, I think there is sometimes a perception in Government that planning is the problem. Maybe we are not even looking to crack a nut. To repeat what I said at the start, we risk setting up a far more confrontational process at the start. Conversations around design, sustainability and so on get lost, because people have to take a fixed position very early on in the process. Look, it is not perfect—there will always be examples that people can give of where it has ended up in confrontation—but the evidence seems to suggest that the nut is not particularly large.
Gavin Barwell
Q It is not getting bigger, in the LGA’s view?
Councillor Newman: No.
Gavin Barwell
Q In its submission to us, the District Councils Network acknowledged that the discharge of planning conditions can be a factor in slow decision making and supported the Government in seeking to address conditions. Why did district councils take a different view on this from the LGA as a whole?
Councillor Newman: I have not had district councils coming to me, knowing that I was coming here, but if that is the position of their network, we will include it in our evidence.
Gavin Barwell
Q You made a very good point that in the year to 30 June, this country granted a record number of planning applications for housing, but that there is a gap between the planning permissions we are granting and homes being built out. If you do not think planning conditions are part of the problem—I would certainly say they are not the sole problem—what do the panel think are the reasons for that gap?
Hugh Ellis: The core reason is that we have restricted our delivery of housing to a single development model. You have signalled, Minister, that you are interested in exploring how we can find new ways to challenge that. The critical issue is that from 2019-20 onwards, the private sector will probably go on building 150,000 homes a year, almost forever. The critical elements missing from our debate—I know your mind is open to this issue—are how we deal with scale strategic development, how we join up infrastructure with housing development and, crucially, how we deliver a new generation of new settlements.
I am very conscious of Macmillan’s achievement in delivering 350,000 homes in the mid-1950s, but he did have a programme that was 32 new towns strong at that point. They are a fantastic way of delivery. They overcome the issue of delivering numbers. Milton Keynes is delivering almost 4,000 homes a year. I believe that there is an exciting opportunity for us to take that up again, but it seems to me above all that in our collective debate about housing delivery in this nation, we need to address our attention to that strategic scale.
Councillor Newman: I will finish with an example from Croydon. If a planning permission has not been taken up within three years, perhaps a council building company like Brick by Brick should be invited to step in and start building the homes that somebody promised they would build but did not.
The Chair
I am afraid that time has beaten us, although we could have gone on much longer. Thank you, witnesses. That ends this morning’s evidence session.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Chair
We will continue with evidence from the National Association of Local Councils and the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Examination of Witnesses
Ruth Reed and Jonathan Owen gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, witnesses. Will you introduce yourselves for the record?
Ruth Reed: My name is Ruth Reed. I am past president of the RIBA, I chair the RIBA planning group and I am representing the institute today.
Jonathan Owen: I am Jonathan Owen. I am chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, which represents 10,000 parish and town councils in England.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q 6868 Do the provisions of the Bill go far enough to support groups that want to undertake a neighbourhood plan and, in particular, does the Bill do enough to support groups in disadvantaged areas? Please address both parts of the question.
Jonathan Owen: You have probably put your finger on the most important issue facing the plans, which is how to make them credible and respected in the system, so that communities engage with and buy into them. The Bill does a lot to help with that process. I have visited lots of parish councils over the last few years and they certainly have expressed concerns about how difficult it is to revise some neighbourhood plans, and about some of the advice that they are getting from principal authorities. Some elements of the Bill will help with that, but I do not think that it tackles the fundamental issue, which is how credible the neighbourhood planning process is within the planning system as a whole. We are in danger of building a lot of expectations that will not be fulfilled.
Neighbourhood plans have been enthusiastically embraced by parishes and communities, with loads of people volunteering to help with them and 400,000 people voting in elections or referendums on them. A really good plan is produced at the end of that process, but all too often those plans are set aside on appeal, or decisions by planning authorities are taken contrary to the plans. We would like to see the Bill tightened to ensure that neighbourhood plans have more influence in the process, and so that there is a clear statement from Government about what exactly the role of neighbourhood planning is in the planning process.
Ruth Reed: Funding has already been put in place for providing plans for disadvantaged areas, but local authorities are beholden to identify and bring forward local plans and we do not yet know whether the funding is sufficient to enable that.
Where you have a clearly identified community, whether it be parishes or other well-knit communities, it is very easy to put in train the process of producing a local plan. In a city area with no clear community boundaries or, necessarily, a sense of community, plans are much harder to bring forward. I am not sure that there is anything other than the intention under previous instigations to provide funding—there is nothing necessarily in the Bill—to promote the identification of those areas and to bring them forward. It would be good to see this rolling out across all communities to give them the same access to the democratic influence in their immediate area.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Q Dr Owen, you said that a lot of neighbourhood plans had been overturned, or that decisions on appeal have blown a hole in the neighbourhood plan—that certainly happened in my constituency—so do you think that the provisions of the Bill will iron some of that out? Do you think that the intervention point, or the point at which the plan has more weight post-inspection, is the right moment, or could it conceivably be earlier in the process?
Jonathan Owen: I think it is helpful that the Bill proposes, in effect, giving plans influence from earlier in the process. Obviously we need to see how that works in practice, but it goes some way to address some of those concerns. We probably need during the passage of the Bill to try to press for greater clarity on the exact role of the neighbourhood plan and get some statements about the importance and significance attached to them.
Kit Malthouse
Q What do you think it should be?
Jonathan Owen: I think we should have a much more plan-led system—I am sure that will not surprise anybody. Neighbourhood plans need to sit very closely with the local plan, and together they should form a robust base on which planning decisions can be taken. The problem at the moment is that some local plans are not as developed as they might be. They do not have five-year land supplies. We have neighbourhood plans coming on stream more quickly, and they have caught the problems of the tension between the various tiers. A bit more clarity in the Bill about the respective responsibilities of those tiers and plans would be helpful.
Ruth Reed: Nothing beats having in place a local plan that is robust and that has sufficient provision for housing land supply, which it can renew throughout its life. The concern is that, if neighbourhood plans are brought forward pre-referendum immediately before local plans have been adopted, it will slow down the very necessary local plans process. The problem then is about the provisions to go back and amend neighbourhood plans. The danger is that you are disillusioning local groups that have thrown a lot of voluntary time and effort into preparing those plans. They will see the local authority, which in cities can seem quite distant—less so in the smaller authorities—wading in and changing something they hold dear because they have gone through the process of having prepared it themselves.
Kit Malthouse
Q But is it the case that, wherever you pick in the lifespan of the neighbourhood plan—from inception through to referendum—by picking a point at which you create weight, you also create a window for land speculators or developers to try to get in under the wire? Do you think the point the Government have chosen for the cut-off date—post-inspection—which is where this weight occurs, is too late? Of course, all the work is done pre-inspection. As you say, part of the mission is to make the process credible so people who are embarking on a two and possibly three-year, process do not feel their time is wasted because an application comes in just before inspection.
Ruth Reed: I do not want to run down the majority of neighbourhood plans, but they are generally prepared by voluntary work, sometimes by amateurs, and until they have gone through the inspection process they are probably not rigorous. It would be difficult to indicate to decision makers, whether the local authority or the inspectorate, that they should be given significant weight, because they have not had the thorough scrutiny of the inspectors’ examination. I personally would not bring it any further forward than that. My greater concern is that they are produced without the backing of, and without being in sync with, a local plan, which would ensure coherence and strategy across a local authority to provide housing where it is needed.
Jonathan Owen: Hopefully, the requirement in the Bill to make local planning authorities provide clear assistance to parishes should help to improve the efficacy of neighbourhood plans. My colleague is right that they are produced by volunteers, but that is a strength. They are often produced by volunteers with exceptional experience. I think that the earlier in the process they have a robust position, the better.
Kit Malthouse
Q Thank you. You have both referred to the importance of the local plan. Obviously, a neighbourhood plan is hampered in the absence of an overarching local plan with a five-year land supply. That is not the fault of the area that has put the neighbourhood plan in place. Do you think there is scope in the Bill or elsewhere to create some kind of compulsion on local authorities to have a plan in place? Some of them seem to take their time.
Ruth Reed: I believe that has already been addressed by the Local Plans Expert Group. I understand that the Minister has already made some comments about that. It would be extremely desirable for there to be some mechanism to make it a statutory obligation to have a local plan in place. Presumably, that should include a robust way of reviewing the five-year land supply to ensure it continues to be effective and not out of date throughout its lifespan.
Jonathan Owen: I agree very much with that. We would also like to see some certainty about how the community infrastructure levy will operate, and perhaps a time limit for getting those schemes in place. Again, one of the things that I hope the Bill will do is incentivise local communities to take control of their places and develop neighbourhood plans, but they need to see some reward for that, and I think that a share of the community infrastructure levy is a key element. The National Association of Local Councils is pushing for that to be increased from 25% to 35% where an approved neighbourhood plan is in place, which would help incentivise and perhaps persuade some communities, including some of the more deprived ones, to see the benefits of having a plan in place.
Kit Malthouse
Q On that notion of having a neighbourhood plan and a local plan, probably the most feared organisation in my constituency is not the Inland Revenue or the police, but the Planning Inspectorate. When a neighbourhood plan that has been through a referendum is in place and a local plan has been approved and has a five-year land supply, do you believe that there should be some restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Planning Inspectorate in such circumstances?
Ruth Reed: The Planning Inspectorate has a duty to make decisions in accordance with the development plan and other material considerations, one of which is national policy. I do not think that it is pushing a particular agenda; it is merely carrying out its duties. I declare an interest: I was an inspector.
Jonathan Owen: I think we would like to see some process perhaps to review the decision of those inspectors. We are calling for a right to be heard, or a right of appeal, so that where decisions are taken contrary to a neighbourhood plan and a local plan, people may have some reference to the Secretary of State or Minister to take a final view on the thing. It is really important that we have consistency across the piece, and that communities developing neighbourhood plans are confident that when they do the work, backed up by a local plan, those plans will have real importance and significance. If they do not, people will ask, “Why bother volunteering time to do these things?” Why bother to spend a lot of time on how to accommodate more housing and more growth in your community if those considerations are set aside for all sorts of complicated legal reasons that the planning system always seems capable of throwing up?
Ruth Reed: May I make a technical point there? The inspectorate is the Secretary of State—it stands in the shoes of the Secretary of State—and the recourse is a section 288 challenge.
Kit Malthouse
Q Yes, I understand that. All MPs can, pretty much, point to inexplicable decisions by the Planning Inspectorate in their area. One of the things that alarms local communities is this notion that the decisions made seem broadly random. I guess what I am trying to fish for is whether there is some way for an area that can prove it is playing ball, is providing housing and has its plans in place, to have the planning inspector say to a developer, “Well, don’t even bother asking, because we are not going to participate”.
Ruth Reed: Every group can be an appellant and has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State, so it would be undemocratic to deny people the opportunity, whether they be housing developers or individuals. Everyone has a right to appeal.
The Chair
Q It is a very important point that Mr Malthouse is making, but may we just be clear that if there is a neighbourhood plan, a local plan and a five-year land supply, you still think that the developers should have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate?
Ruth Reed: If everything is in place, the developer’s case would not have any weight.
The Chair
But do you think they should have the right to appeal?
Ruth Reed: Everyone should have the right to appeal; they do not have the right to succeed.
Kit Malthouse
Q When you say “everyone” should have the right to appeal, you do not mean the residents.
Ruth Reed: Everyone who has had a decision made—no, I am not talking about third parties. I am talking about planning refusals under section 78. Anybody who has had a refusal is allowed to appeal the decision—appellants themselves may appeal the refusal, whoever they are.
Kit Malthouse
Q I understand, but you said that was of democratic importance—
Ruth Reed: Yes—
Kit Malthouse
Q But obviously a lot of residents believe the system is one-sided, because they cannot appeal an appeal that is allowed.
Ruth Reed: If there is a material error of process, they may ask the local authority to take it up as a 288 challenge in the High Court.
Kit Malthouse
Q Okay. My final question is on neighbourhood plans and the areas, to which you alluded earlier. Do you think that neighbourhood plans could be put in place by self-defined areas?
Ruth Reed: My understanding was that you could put forward an area and have it accepted. That is, to a degree, self-defining.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Q May I have your views on the availability and level of resources to support communities that want to undertake neighbourhood planning? What more could be done to enable and encourage neighbourhood planning in more deprived communities and in areas of high housing need, for example, where there are voices that might not be heard in the planning process, but that might stand to benefit from the neighbourhood planning process?
Ruth Reed: I personally believe that there should be a proactive role for local authorities to instigate and identify neighbourhoods, and put in train a process. There should also be an opportunity to financially enable not only the technical aspects of planning, but—on behalf of the Royal Institute of British Architects—to provide design capacity to enable them to input well-worded design policies, and even design codes so that individual neighbourhoods can give expression to the kind of development that they would like to see, and to make it real to them. We believe that there may now be financial provision for this. One of the problems in planning is that it is a paper, two-dimensional base exercise. Sometimes you need people like architects to make it real and three-dimensional and to be able to explain what it would look like, using models or digital models.
Jonathan Owen: The pump-priming funding provided by the Government to support neighbourhood plan development has been an element that has encouraged parish councils to get involved, and it has driven neighbourhood planning of the 2,000 plans that have been produced. Parishes have led 90% of them, so they are embracing that opportunity, and I would like that to continue. The element in the Bill requiring planning authorities to identify the kind of advice that they would provide to groups and draw up neighbourhood plans is helpful. Where it falls a bit short is where it does not set out what is required or expected by the local planning authority.
We would like to see something more formal by way of either a statutory memorandum of understanding or a code of practice relating to what might be expected of the local planning authority in terms of helping with community involvement, helping them to access the principal authority website to do consultation work on it and that kind of thing, rather than just a basic entitlement. So it would be a mix of hard cash and softer things that could be provided by the planning authority. I know that would cost them money, and there was a good debate this morning about planning authority resources.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q Prince Charles’s Foundation for Building Community did the groundwork in my area to self-define an urban area around a historic church as a community. It is a coherent community, and it is a community that has not been defined as such for 300 to 400 years. In your position, would you say that there was far more scope for this? Imagine if it had been done for the St Paul’s neighbourhood plan 40 years ago. Things might be rather different. Do you see great scope in this, and do you see scope for your organisation in prompting this kind of thinking?
Ruth Reed: I think we have locally active members who have been engaged in the first phase of neighbourhood plans. It is not core to architects to bring forward planning initiatives. There is no reason why certain individuals should not get involved, but it is not something that the RIBA would do, since the RIBA exists to promote architecture rather than enable communities to deliver local plans. There are groups aligned to the RIBA, including the Design Council, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the Architecture Centre Network to put design capacity into local authorities. The RIBA would be involved in initiatives in this kind of area to provide resources to local groups.
John Mann
Q Some would say great architecture defines communities and I hope you will give further thought as to how you might inspire people, particularly in urban areas and around our great cathedrals and other great buildings. Most of your member organisations were busy consulting vast amounts of local people over local plans, and then the Government changed the goalposts in March 2013. How many local plans have had to be redone because of the requirement to consult neighbouring authorities?
Jonathan Owen: I don’t have the answer to that. Two thousand neighbourhood plans have been prepared by our parish and town councils—
John Mann
There must be a significant number, because councils like mine that had had all the consultation were informed that they had to start again entirely from scratch, which seems to me to be quite a way of delaying house building—albeit inadvertently—by the coalition Government.
Ruth Reed: I think stability in the planning system is to be welcomed, because it gives confidence to developers and other people bringing forth developments that they will get planning. That is why it is important that local plans are in place, and it is very important that they have adequate provision for housing land in particular. The stability we have had since 2012 has been quite welcome.
John Mann
Q The stability we have had? There has been no stability in all those councils that had to abandon their local plans—there is no plan there, so in fact there has been instability. Dr Owen, have there not been cases where small district councils, with the risk of adverse costs should they lose at appeal, have felt obliged to pass things that they do not want and their local communities vociferously do not want for fear of risking a quarter of a million pounds in costs from their budget? Does that sound familiar?
Jonathan Owen: I am sure there are examples of that, but from a parish perspective I guess that also introduces uncertainty into those neighbourhood plans themselves. We have had plenty of examples of where those neighbourhood plans have had to be redone, revised or tossed aside. In the pack of papers we sent in by way of submission, we quoted Haddenham parish council, which gave evidence to an all-party parliamentary group last week mapping out the enthusiasm of the people who drew up that neighbourhood plan. They got experts involved from within the community and produced a really great plan, but within six months it got set aside through a judicial review.
The representative from that parish came here and was deeply disappointed that all that hard work and effort had come to naught. He could not see how he would be able to engage his local residents or his community in shaping such a plan again. That is why we need some certainty, clarity and credibility around the whole system. Hopefully the Bill will help address that.
John Mann
Q Indeed. My own parish council had exactly the same experience. Vast numbers participated. A community plan was drawn up with huge engagement. It was environmentally sound and very forward-thinking on green technologies. Architecture was built into it, with what the new housing should look like to fit in with the feel and history of previous architecture, but that was overturned because of the five-year housing supply. Someone wants to build something that does not fit in at all, and that was not agreed by anyone, because someone in Whitehall says, “You’ve got to have this number of houses.” Will that inspire more neighbourhoods to have plans, or will that mean there will be even more cynicism about the planning system?
Jonathan Owen: Well, I think you are right—cynicism is a very real risk. That is why we need to ensure that we build a system where the role of neighbourhood plans is clearly spelled out and we are not raising expectations unreasonably, so that, together with local plans, they provide a really robust framework to support communities to have control over their areas and get the right kind of development.
John Mann
Q The evidence, overwhelmingly, is that where there is a neighbourhood plan that increases the potential housing supply through land allocation, that housing will be built and will be built quickly. However, there is a bit of a time lag in proving that in huge numbers. Do you intend to keep providing that information on how successful neighbourhood plans have been in bringing forward new housing? Would that not therefore strengthen the argument that where there is a neighbourhood plan that has been formally adopted by one of your members in district council, after a referendum and a council vote, that should be the plan stuck to by everybody?
Jonathan Owen: We will certainly showcase those examples. Government research shows that something like 10% additional housing is provided by neighbourhood plans. I am particularly pleased that Newport Pagnell, one of our larger town councils, won an award from Planning magazine for the quality of its neighbourhood plan, which, among other things, provided for 30% more housing than was set out in the local plan.
We believe—you would expect us to say this—that parishes can really drive forward neighbourhood planning, and can set aside the outdated nimby view of parishes and build communities that have housing for local residents and others, provided in a way that has infrastructure and community support. The key thing is to make sure that people’s enthusiasm for that is not set aside because the plans are set aside or overturned on appeal or whatever.
John Mann
Q Indeed. With more than 20 local plans either agreed or proceeding in my constituency, every single one brings forward new housing—more than any plan previously. Every single community is willing to have housing, but wants to have a great say on what kind of housing—what shape, what design—and where it should be. Seing as so many of them are in beautiful parishes such as the village where I live, is there not a danger that one part of society is going to benefit from this whereas in more deprived communities, in urban areas, there is the same desire for local control over neighbourhoods, but it requires a bit more imagination to create communities sufficiently robustly small to carry out this kind of planning? Should we not be giving far more incentive, encouragement and expert advice to those communities, on the basis that all politics is local as long as you are prepared to trust local people?
The Chair
In 10 seconds, please.
Ruth Reed: I think we have already said that we would support the proactive work by local authorities in identifying communities and bringing forward neighbourhood plans in more deprived areas.
Jonathan Owen: And parish councils, of course, are increasingly being set up in urban areas these days. Sutton Coldfield, Swindon and many other places are setting them up, so hopefully, with a bit of luck, we will see more parish councils in those urban areas helping those deprived communities.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Q Part of this has been covered by John Mann’s questions, but just to be clear, it seems to me there are far fewer neighbourhood plans in big cities than elsewhere. It would be useful to understand from you what you think the main cause of that is. Is it because it is very difficult to identify a community small enough to be viable for a neighbourhood plan within a bigger urban area?
Jonathan Owen: I think it is that, and I think those communities need support from their local planning authorities. Of course, the absence of a parish or town council in those areas means there is no institution that can drive it forward and raise funds through precepts to support the neighbourhood plan, with an ongoing democratic existence over time.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Q One of the things so many communities want is to have an influence on how their communities look and feel, what nice places they are to live in and all of that. Do you think the changes proposed in the Bill will help that? Will people really feel that they are going to influence the places in which they live?
Ruth Reed: I think it would be helpful if it was explicit that provision is made for enabling the capacity for local communities to express what they want out of the quality of their environment. I do not think it is explicit. It is implied that there will be funding provided for guidance, but it does not say that that should be what it is. I think it would be good if the Bill made a clear statement that good design will be brought forward through this process.
Rebecca Pow
Q Do you think that will be an incentive for people who are sceptical about the process we have been discussing? Would it really encourage them to do it?
Ruth Reed: I think if they felt they had some control over the way things looked, they would be much more incentivised to bring it forward.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Q I am interested in the powers providing the finance to deliver and get the expertise in, and so on. What about practical support beyond that, for instance toolkits, pro formas and websites that can generate content and formatting? Maybe I can use this opportunity to blow the trumpet of Greater Manchester, which is currently embarking on a project with the Cabinet Office to develop open data mapping. Would more projects like that help your parish and town councils?
Jonathan Owen: I have been interested in how the neighbourhood planning process has taken off over the last few years. We should recognise that it was an experiment, really, and we are at the early stages of that experiment. In any experiment we need to have plenty of ways to share good practice and showcase what others are doing, and the kind of toolkits you have mentioned. Certainly, from talking to parishes, they are reassured when they are able to talk to other parishes or other neighbourhood forums that have done it and learn lessons from that. Anything that we put in place—not necessarily in the Bill but through any financial support— to ensure that sharing of good practice would be brilliant.
Ruth Reed: Any obligations placed on local authorities to provide extra services, if they are not accompanied by funding, are going to put extra pressure on a system that is already in a—
Jim McMahon
The mapping, of course, could be provided by central Government. The technology platform could be provided centrally.
The Chair
Order. I am really sorry, but time has beaten us, and we have to move on. Thank you so much for coming and giving evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Carol Reilly and Matt Thomson gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from Locality, and from the Campaign to Protect Rural England. For this session we have until 3 pm. I welcome the witnesses. Could you please introduce yourselves?
Carole Reilly: Hello, I am Carol Reilly. I am the head of neighbourhoods and housing at Locality.
Matt Thomson: Good afternoon. I am Matt Thomson. I am the head of planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Jim McMahon
Q I am interested in the balance of the drive and ambition to build more homes with trying to protect the environmental standards, in particular around the green belt. I would welcome your views on that.
Matt Thomson: Shall I kick off, given that green belt is one of the key things that the Campaign to Protect Rural England is concerned with? It comes down to the general principle behind neighbourhood planning, that people and communities at the local level are best placed to make decisions about the impacts of development on their area, and about the type of development that takes place in their area. The more local the level at which decisions are made, the better the outcomes can be for those kinds of concerns.
Carole Reilly: I think it is really important that we listen to communities. We have seen a number of neighbourhood planning groups that are challenging local authorities that have not got a “brownfield first” policy. That is one the things that we see: a brownfield list that is going to be updated and reported on. That surely will be one of the ways, viability issues all being considered, of securing the green belt.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Q Welcome to Westminster. Do you think the way the local plan interacts with the neighbourhood plan could be improved in any way, particularly bearing in mind that the neighbourhood plan has been subject to local referendum? If you think that interaction could be improved, how would you suggest improving it?
Carole Reilly: I think we are going to see quite an interesting two years coming up, where local planning authorities are getting their local plans in place. I think neighbourhood plans and local plans can be produced in tandem. They depend on a lot of the same evidence. We are very heartened that this Bill shows a commitment for local authorities to explain what their support is going to be. There are a number of ways in which the development of the local plan would really help the development of a neighbourhood plan: giving maps, giving evidence, sharing diagrams—stuff that often does not happen at local authority level. So I think there is a way that they can be developed together. Without a local plan, obviously the latest plan takes precedence under the national planning policy framework—it is the neighbourhood plan. Where there is no five-year land supply, that leaves your neighbourhood plan terribly vulnerable. So I think the two have got to be intertwined. We also have to remember that, in practice, we are four years in, and there was a lot of scepticism from local authorities about neighbourhood plans. It feels like there is a far more open, partnership approach now.
But local planning authorities have been stripped of funding and they have reduced huge amounts of skills. Lots of people do not have a lot of experience with neighbourhood planning, and their focus will be on writing and producing the local plan. So I think they should be produced together, they should be meshed together, and that can be done by sharing that top-level evidence that is gathered by the local planning authority, but I think the resources are tight and the focus is going to be on the local plan.
Matt Thomson: I would agree with a lot of what Carole said. The question reflects one of the key problems that we have been facing with the operation of the planning system for decades. That is that where you have tiers of nested planning policy documents, there is always a question of which has precedence over the other. It should not necessarily be just a question of the one that is produced most recently holding the most weight in a planning application environment.
Another, bigger, question has vexed us with regard to the relationship between local plans, county structure plans and regional strategies. We tend to think of neighbourhood plans as somehow needing to be prepared in the context of an adopted local plan, despite the fact that, although we have lots of adopted local plans, we do not have enough adopted local plans. But we need a relationship whereby the work that goes on at the neighbourhood plan level informs the preparation of the local plan, rather than the local plan, when it is finally produced, somehow trumping a short-lived neighbourhood plan and forcing the neighbourhood to review that plan. We need somehow to protect the policies and proposals of the neighbourhood plan, and bring them into the local plan when it is being produced.
Chris Philp
Q On that point, can you think of particular examples of the type of policies or measures that might appear in a neighbourhood plan and that you think could or should trump a local plan?
Matt Thomson: The existing NPPF says that detailed policies—non-strategic policies—in a neighbourhood plan, where they exist, can outweigh the policies in the local plan.
Chris Philp
Q What is the definition of “strategic” in that context?
Matt Thomson: I think, generally speaking, that that is interpreted as relating to the scale and location of mainly housing development. It is the big picture things. A lot of local plans have quite detailed policies on design, and on the kinds of development management policies and conditions that can be imposed on planning permissions and so on. A neighbourhood may feel that the design policies are not the right design policies for their particular area, and so produce their own design policies. It is that kind of thing.
Chris Philp
Q As an example, let us say that the local plan specifies the total number of housing units in a five-year period to be built in a particular area—in a village or a particular neighbourhood of a suburb. Would it be reasonable to say that a neighbourhood plan could allocate different sites—that would take precedence—provided that the total number of housing units was the same as specified in the local plan?
Matt Thomson: That, I think, is a tricky area. A good example of where this has worked well is Thame in Oxfordshire. The district council gave an overall housing requirement for the Thame neighbourhood plan to meet and identify its own sites. It is more difficult when the district council has already identified sites, because the owner of that site has a reasonable expectation that they will get planning permission for it. It would be difficult for a neighbourhood plan to de-allocate a local plan. It is not impossible, and it may be appropriate to do that.
One of the other pitfalls we would want to watch out for is this: we know that neighbourhood plans are allocating more housing sites than they were expected to—that is the 10% or 11% figure that the Government have been talking about—and that is great news. What I would be really concerned about is when a neighbourhood is expected to provide 100 houses, but plans for 110 houses, and the local plan then takes the extra 10 houses off its total. It should be putting those 10 houses somewhere else in the district and not just double-counting, because it might lead to a void and end up punishing that neighbourhood for being much more forthcoming with housing sites.
Carole Reilly: Also, where a local plan is allocating a large housing development, quite often what we have seen in practice is that, on designation of the area, the local authority has removed that strategic site from the neighbourhood planning designated area, against the wishes of the qualifying body. Quite often they are not even able to take those out, and there has been quite a lot of wrangling over designation for boundaries that are coterminous with parish boundaries, because strategic sites have been removed. Whether that is about not wanting to interfere with housing development or about protection of the community infrastructure levy, there are a lot of questions.
Matt Thomson: To clarify, if it is desirable for a neighbourhood plan to de-allocate one site and allocate a different site, then that is a good thing—it is something that the CPRE would often support, because, as I said before, it is better for local people to make the decision. I am just saying that it would be tricky to do that. It could be tricky and there could be legal ramifications if an investor has invested in that site as a result.
Chris Philp
I am not sure that any public body has ever been financially liable for changing planning permissions.
Helen Hayes
Q May I ask Carole Reilly how many neighbourhood plans Locality has supported to date?
Carole Reilly: To date? Under the current programme, we have supported 1,300 neighbourhood plans with grants for technical support. In outline, there are two ways in which you can get support. You can get cash—£9,000 for straightforward plans and, for those that are more complex, the grant can go up to £15,000—and, alongside that, we offer a number of technical support packages. Under the current programme, which we have been running since the beginning of 2015, we have worked with 1,200 or 1,300 groups.
Helen Hayes
Q Of those, how many neighbourhood plans have been in urban areas and/or in areas of significant deprivation?
Carole Reilly: It is pretty similar to the national figure, so we are talking about 10% deprivation, but on the programme about 15% of groups coming from non-parish areas, which is slightly more—it stands to reason that those people would come in for higher levels of support.
Helen Hayes
Q Have you done any work to understand good practice or the resources necessary to engage effectively communities that might not naturally have the capacity or inclination to engage in strategic planning?
Carole Reilly: We have. We undertook an internal review early days, thinking, “Why is this going on?” because we always seemed to be speaking mainly to the parish council. I have to say that that is one of the elements of the Bill that I feel most disappointed with—it does not go far enough. There was a manifesto commitment to encourage neighbourhood planning across the country, but I think we could be sitting in this room in 10 years’ time and, if we have not done something very significant around urban and deprived areas, we will still be having 10% to 15% of forums doing neighbourhood plans.
Some of the issues are very straightforward. Parish and town councils have a place, a building, a phone, a clerk and an address where people know to go, so they are easy to do. When we did all the asset transfer work at Locality, people understood district councils better than counties. People understood where to go. Those councils also have a big infrastructure, like a number of other bodies, to inform them, “This is an opportunity, take it!” and they have a bank account that they can get going straightaway.
In urban areas, who is your neighbourhood? Is someone on the next street your neighbourhood? Where is the boundary? Is it coterminous with another one you know, such as your political or health boundary? What is it? That is really difficult. Who are the leaders on that? I think it is a major problem that neighbourhood forums have a five-year lifespan. From the start, that does not build in long-term thinking.
There is a problem about funding for implementation for forums, so while my first reaction would be to say that CIL is an issue, it and the new homes bonus scheme only channel funding to areas where there is growth already. If we look at those forums in deprived, urban areas, where CIL is set but set at nought, 0% of nought is still nought, so it makes no difference. These issues could be helped in terms of big-picture stuff. A national policy that tried to balance regeneration and planning would be really helpful so that people can understand what a neighbourhood plan can do for an area where there is actually not a lot of housing demand—there is not a problem because there is not a shortage—but where there is a shortage of employment. Using your neighbourhood plan to understand employment space and encourage and generate that would be great.
The reason why it does not happen in urban areas is that there is not already a thing or a vehicle to do it. In poorer areas, there is an issue about personal investment. If you do not own your own home—if you live in private rented accommodation—you have no investment there, and there is nothing to lose. If you are time-poor, you are not going to get involved. There are also things about skills, transient communities and a general point about focus.
I think a huge amount of work can be done. There have been promotional campaigns on neighbourhood planning, but I think we need something much more targeted and focused, something that works with the people that we know on the ground—the local planning authority—and supports them. We also need to fund it, so it is about a very proactive, promotional mobilisation campaign that targets specific groups to take it forward, otherwise we will be still be at the same picture.
Mrs Villiers
Q I would very much like to ask Matt Thomson about one of the points made in your recent report, “Safe Under Us?” about housing development on the green belt. Obviously our planning rules say that such development should be made only in very exceptional cases, but I am alarmed by the research that CPRE and the London Green Belt Council have done, which seems to suggest that inspectors are now deeming general housing pressure and housing need to be sufficiently exceptional to justify green belt development. Could you expand on that?
Matt Thomson: Well, you have put the case that I think CPRE would make very eloquently. Despite the fact that Ministers have said on several occasions that housing demand on its own is not sufficient justification to grant planning permission on green-belt land, it is of concern to us that neither local authorities nor the Planning Inspectorate have necessarily enforced that in all cases, and certainly not in a number of cases that are of concern to CPRE.
Secondly, under the same principle, it is very clear, in our view, in paragraph 14 of the NPPF that, while local authorities should plan to meet their objectively assessed need in full, the requirement does not apply in green belt areas and other areas listed in footnote 9. However, councils are planning for growth—despite being restricted by green belt—and releasing land from the green belt to meet that growth need at an increasing and higher rate than regional plans were doing before they were abolished, largely for the reason that they were proposing development in the green belt. Yes, that is a great concern to us. Housing need obviously needs to be met somewhere and there is still some way to go in order to overcome the problem of how housing need should be met while protecting the green belt and other areas of landscape importance and so on that we would expect to be protected.
Mrs Villiers
Q Is there a legislative fix to this? Should we be thinking about adding something to the Bill to resolve the problem?
Matt Thomson: Strangely, we are not calling for that. Our position is that the NPPF should be enforced, as the policy is clearly worded at the moment. At the moment, our feeling is that local authorities, which are hard-pressed to get local plans in place and to meet their unrealistic housing targets, are granting planning permission and releasing sites from the green belt through their local plans simply because they do not feel like they will get the support from the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State if they choose to do what the NPPF policy actually tells them to.
Jim McMahon
Q I want to try to get under the skin of trying to encourage planners to come forward in areas of deprivation. In previous sessions, we have heard about a conflict between identifiable neighbourhoods of scale. Planning tends to be easier where a village can be identified that is very defined in its own right, but a lot harder in urban areas. Is that partly because, in urban areas, local is extremely local—the street or collections of streets, rather than defined villages and towns on a bigger scale? Could more support be given even more locally so that people could have a say? Perhaps clusters of communities might be able to come together with a bit more support than is currently offered.
Carole Reilly: In urban areas?
Jim McMahon
In urban areas.
Carole Reilly: There are lots of examples of how you can find leaders in urban areas to help to identify what the needs are. Until recently, we ran the community organisers programme, funded through the Office of Community Services. That was an amazing way of finding out what people were passionate about in their communities, because—let’s face it—2,000 groups doing neighbourhood planning is not about a passion for planning. It is about a passion for places and for placemaking. We need to be really clear about that. It happens in cities and towns as much as in rural areas, so we should try to harness it, and there are a lot of ways of doing that.
We must commend the 14% of groups on our programme that are from urban areas and are delivering neighbourhood plans as forums, and we should understand why those groups exist. There is a really active group in London that is bringing together London neighbourhood planners and inspiring people, despite enormous odds including enormous development pressure, high land values and conflict over boundaries where every scrap of land is worth so much money. Conversely, in the north, regeneration may be at the very core of city centres, but is not in suburban areas.
There are loads of examples. Community organising approach is a big one, as is working with neighbourhood planning forums already in urban areas and getting them to spread the word. We have just started to run the neighbourhood planning champions programme, which is a really good way of inspiring people—come and see it. The resource programme is good. A lot of money has been dedicated to neighbourhood planning, but the promotion around urban areas has been under-resourced. The way to mobilise people in urban areas is to have a far more focused, targeted and funded intervention.
Rebecca Pow
Q In suggesting modifications that might be introduced to the neighbourhood plans, do you think that there will be enough chances to include and consider the environmental implications?
Matt Thomson: The existing legislation—the Bill does nothing to harm this—gives communities the opportunity to address whatever issues they feel that they want to address through their neighbourhood plan. The serious question is whether the effort to which they go to do that will be taken notice of when it comes to planning permissions being granted.
Neighbourhood planning has the power for placemaking and environmental protection. Difficult decisions at a local level about how to balance the need for housing in a green-belt village with the desire to protect the green belt and that kind of thing are effectively made through neighbourhood plans. The question is whether the decisions actually get made in accordance with the neighbourhood plan. At that point, the concern about environmental protection really kicks in.
Rebecca Pow
Q If this was made very clear, perhaps with the guidance of the Bill, would that encourage communities to be keener to have development?
Matt Thomson: There is already evidence that demonstrates that as soon as communities start considering about their development needs, even when they start off from a very nimby perspective, they think, “We are really worried about development that is going to come and destroy our village,” or whatever, and then they all sit down together and start talking about it. They then realise that there is a development need: the neighbour’s children need somewhere to live, there is a school that is threatened with closure or a shop that is closing down and so on, and people start to recognise the needs that they have. But again, because they are the local people and they know their area, they are best positioned to resolve the potential conflict between growth and conservation.
Carole Reilly: There is a wide interpretation of environmental issues. We talk about coding on houses and new developments having to reach certain codes, but neighbourhood planners are the best people to understand their area and to build into it those things that make places permeable—things that make you able to walk to your shop, and not have a development that faces out in which you get in your car and drive to the mini-supermarket.
We do see lots of neighbourhood plans that are coming up with environmental policies, and they are very interesting. They have policies around walkability and building cycle paths. I think that is core to building communities; I do not think they are separated.
John Mann
Q On that point, before you spoke, Ms Reilly, I wrote down safe walk routes, including school routes, and road design and layout. Are there sufficient powers in neighbourhood planning in relation to those issues, or is that merely illusory? Separately, Mr Thomson, in relation to neighbourhood plans that specify explicit preference for forms of energy that should be used within the neighbourhood and state that preference should be given only to housing that uses those forms of energy—in other words, plans that define what the energy requirements should be and how they should and perhaps should not be delivered—is there more scope for that? Are the powers there?
Carole Reilly: I think there is more scope for it. One of the things we see time and again in neighbourhood planning is protecting green spaces. There is a balance between what is a land use planning policy and what is something that has actually drawn people to the table in the first place but is not a land use planning policy, and is then appendicised in a neighbourhood plan and therefore does not form part of a statutory document. These things always have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but there are loads of examples of neighbourhood plans that have protected green space and encouraged cycle paths, and there are other things that are more tangential that have not.
On the issue that was Matt’s answer about environmental energy use, the key question will be about viability. One of our technical support packages is around viability. We see neighbourhood planning groups being increasingly interested in site allocations, understanding the strategic environmental assessment and, on top of that, looking at the viability of a site. Neighbourhood planning groups will look at those sites that are not interesting to the volume house builders—they will look at a site that might have four plots on it. We run a programme for community-led housing in locality and we see these inspirational community organisations that think, “Actually, we need something for old people and we want to build it here,” in stuff that would be completely overlooked. I think it is not just about energy; it is about understanding those areas that would be distressed areas forever and understanding them within their viability in terms of using different sources of energy.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Q Carole Reilly, I think you said that the five-year life spans of neighbourhood plans do not encourage long-term thinking, if I understood you correctly.
Carole Reilly: For neighbourhood forums. A neighbourhood plan is the length you determine it to be.
Dr Huq
Q Right. The Bill requires a local planning authority to review its statement of community involvement every five years. I wonder whether both of you think that is a suitable length of time. For a neighbourhood forum, do you think that five years is not long enough? In a constituency such as mine, there are a lot of transient people, and a lot of neighbourhood plans. People staying in urban areas do not get them, and there seems to be a mushrooming, with every street seemingly submitting one at the moment. There used to be a Central Ealing one, but now, even with that, everyone is coming forward with the whole impetus to localism. I wonder, for both of you, what those timeframes should be.
Matt Thomson: My view on statements of community involvement is that they are a strange hangover from the former form of development plans. Really an SCI should be a piece of information, which is on a council’s website, that explains how people engage with the planning system in that council area. So it should be updated every time that the council has a new bit of information that it wants to share. The idea of reviewing the SCI every five years is bonkers; it should be reviewed all the time to make sure that people know how to engage with the planning system.
The Chair
Order. On the point of bonkers, I am afraid we are going to have to stop. I have stretched it as much as I possibly could. I really apologise, because we could have gone further. Thank you for being excellent witnesses, but we have to move on. We will now hear evidence from the Compulsory Purchase Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Society and the Royal Town Planning Institute—for Members, page 32 of the brief. For this session we have until 4 pm.
Examination of Witnesses
Colin Cottage, Richard Asher, Tim Smith and Richard Blyth gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, witnesses. Will you introduce yourselves?
Richard Blyth: My name is Richard Blyth. I am head of policy for the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Richard Asher: My name is Richard Asher. I am a chartered surveyor and a member of the RICS governing council.
Colin Cottage: I am Colin Cottage. I am also a chartered surveyor, and I am chairman of the Compulsory Purchase Association.
Tim Smith: Good afternoon. My name is Tim Smith. I am a solicitor and member of the Law Society planning and environmental law committee.
Jim McMahon
Q I will start with the planning conditions element but perhaps, with the Chair’s permission, return to the compulsory purchase powers element later. On the planning conditions, what evidence is there to suggest that pre-commencement conditions are overused? Is there evidence that they are unnecessary?
Tim Smith: The Law Society represents those in private practice and in local government, so we get both sides of the story, as it were. The complaint is more from those who benefit from planning permission and have to implement the conditions. Certainly there is complaint there that the weight of pre-commencement conditions can be onerous for those wanting to start on site.
It is probably helpful to categorise the problem by breaking it down into two separate areas—first, pre-commencement conditions that are relevant but need not be discharged before commencement. One can conceive of conditions that perhaps affect the operation of development, which would certainly have to be complied with before occupation, but not necessarily by commencement, yet often by default the imposition is that they must be discharged before commencement of development.
Secondly, on a more granular level still, “by commencement of development” means, in essence, before any development at all is carried out—development as defined in the legislation. There are some examples, we feel, where certain early works, such as demolition and site clearance, could take place before the conditions fall to be discharged, which would help with the timely implementation of development, but still ensure that the details that need to be discharged are done by the time that they need to be. I have seen one commentator express the view, for example, “Do you really need to approve the details of your roof tiles before you start to demolish and clear the site?” The answer is probably not. However, if there were a way to ensure that the conditions were discharged when they had to be discharged, some development could be got under way quicker than it is at the moment.
Jim McMahon
Q In order to allow flexibility—so you would not argue for a blanket rule to allow demolition in all cases, because there might be an argument to say that what is there now could be better than the alternative, depending on the final scheme presented.
Tim Smith: Yes. It is the kind of thing that is susceptible to regulations and policy far better than it is to primary legislation, but that would be an example of where some welcome flexibility could be brought.
Richard Blyth: I think there is an issue around whether the condition needs to be pre-commencement or not—around leverage, I suppose. If construction is under way, there is less incentive for the developer to come forward and submit the relevant scheme because they are already getting on with it, whereas saying, “You must do all this before you start,” gives a very powerful incentive for the party to come to the table. That may be why local authorities have tended to do that. They are afraid that, if they try to implement and enforce a condition after the starting gun, they might find that that was very difficult to do in terms of ultimately getting the court to agree. There are lawyers here who would probably better interpret that than me, but that may be why this has arisen.
Under the Infrastructure Act 2015, if a condition is not discharged by a certain time, it will be discharged in a deemed fashion, so the issue of having to discharge them is not necessarily requiring further legislation—we have just had some legislation on that. The other question is that, if a condition is not really serving a useful planning purpose, welcome other aspects of the Bill would say that it should not actually be possible to impose it in any case.
I am just a little concerned that requiring every good developer and every good planning authority to go through a written sign-off procedure for the sake of the minority, perhaps, of planning authorities and developers who may be pursuing less good practice is kind of asking everyone to take on an extra burden for the benefit of some bad eggs. Maybe there is another way of dealing with the problem of poor practice than requiring everyone else to have to go through the process of signing off conditions and, ultimately, the risk of applications being refused as the only way of resolving the dispute.
Chris Philp
Q The draft legislation provides that the Secretary of State by regulations can prohibit the use of certain planning conditions entirely, should the Secretary of State see fit. First, do you think that is a reasonable provision? Secondly, assuming you do—or if you do—are there any particular kinds of planning condition that you, if you were advising the Secretary of State, would advise him or her to prohibit?
Tim Smith: We have some visibility about how this might play out, because the consultation has been issued for views on what sort of conditions might be prevented. What we have in those proposals are things that, as a matter of policy, ought not to be applied anyway. I recognise that putting them on a statutory footing places a different emphasis on them. It is not just a question of whether policy should be interpreted so as to prevent them. The starting point will be that they should not be applied.
Having seen the list of conditions that are proposed, I would have a concern that some of them are not capable of being drafted in a sufficiently precise way. One proposal, for example, is that conditions should not be imposed that place a disproportionate financial burden on developers. That is easy to state and easy to understand as a concept—
Chris Philp
Q So you think that is inappropriately broad.
Tim Smith: I think that, as the proposal stands, that would present difficulties both for developers and local authorities in deciding whether or not it were a permissible condition, and it is not the kind of thing that I can see is easily capable of being further defined so as to provide that certainty.
There are other things that I think are appropriate. One of the examples is—
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member is taking a sip from that cup. It looks remarkably like tea. I am sure that it has cooled down to a temperature that is no longer regarded as hot. In other words, we cannot have hot drinks in here, bizarrely. I am afraid that is one of the rules. I am sorry—do continue.
Tim Smith: I think that the proposals we have before us in the consultation are on the species of condition that it would be apt to prevent. I do not know whether this is an appropriate answer to this question, but I should perhaps flag that there is one type of condition that should be expressly permitted that currently is not. It would be a missed opportunity if the Bill did not allow for it. It is something that the Law Society has expressed a view on before. I am happy to elaborate on that now or, if you would prefer, I can come back to it.
Chris Philp
Q No, elaborate now, please.
Tim Smith: At the moment, one cannot use a condition for the payment of a financial contribution. In some cases of minor development, the planning obligations sought from a developer upon the granting of planning permission are those that would be minor financial contributions. As things stand, the developer and the local planning authority are forced to use the vehicle of a planning obligation under section 106, which is the negotiation of an agreement, and that takes time and incurs additional cost for both sides. The cost, however, will be borne by the developer in defraying the cost to the local authority in putting that agreement in place.
One of the things that the Law Society has recommended in response to previous consultations is that, so long as it be agreed between local authority and applicant—a proposal that forms part of the Bill, albeit for different reasons—it would speed up the system to prevent the developer from having to enter into a section 106 agreement because they will have consented to a condition requiring the payment of a financial contribution. That is the very reverse of what is being proposed at the moment. These are conditions that must not be opposed. We are saying, and we have recommended this previously in consultations, that it would add utility to the system to allow conditions that are expressly approved by the developer to require the payment of financial contributions.
Chris Philp
Q So are you in effect suggesting that what we currently refer to as a section 106 agreement should be integrated into the main planning consent to avoid having to then have a lengthy and uncertain subsequent negotiation?
Tim Smith: It will not be appropriate for all cases. This relates to a safeguard that would apply for the benefit of the developer. The concern had always been that, if you allowed conditions to be imposed about the payment of financial contributions, it could be done unilaterally by the planning authority, leaving the developer having either to appeal the permission or to submit another application to get rid of that condition.
A sufficient safeguard would be if the developer said, “I’m fine with the process here. I’m fine with the principle of paying this contribution, so let’s put it into a condition so that I do not then have to negotiate the planning obligation.” In a sense, you might be surprised that I am sitting here as a lawyer saying that there are some things that lawyers get involved in that are perhaps not necessary, but the view expressed fairly broadly in the committee is that it would be sensible to include the idea in a piece of legislation.
Chris Philp
Could I invite other witnesses to comment on that?
Richard Blyth: On the issue of whether it is necessary, the proposals to elevate a list of satisfactory kinds of conditions into law from policy have been around under successive Governments for a very long time, and the principle is well understood. It seems sensible to elevate that list into the status of law. I am not clear, however, on why the Government need to go further and empower the Secretary of State to add a whole series of secondary legislation to the list of what constitutes a reasonable condition. I do not see why that is necessary; we have not had that before. I would have thought that policy and guidance would be quite able to elaborate, if the Bill becomes law, on a satisfactory basis in principle for defining a reasonable condition.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Can I move on to look at some of the compulsory purchase order provisions in the Bill? To what extent do you think the proposals in the Bill will free up more land for development and lead to the delivery of more homes in a speedier and more streamlined way?
Richard Asher: I think that any improvements to the compulsory purchase process are to be welcomed. The provisions in the Bill for resolving the long-standing issues about temporary possession are very important. It has long been an area of great difficulty for practitioners to try to interpret how temporary possession should be dealt with. That is a key advantage of the Bill. Some of the detail needs further work, as the wording could lead to further legal disputes or litigation. However, the principle of providing for temporary possession on broadly the same terms as permanent acquisition is very important.
There is one area of difficulty: the danger that authorities may use powers to acquire land compulsorily when it is only required on a temporary basis. That interferes with long-term prospects for development by landowners, whose development plans are quite often disrupted by compulsory purchase on a temporary basis. That needs to be considered to ensure that authorities only acquire land on a temporary basis when it is required temporarily.
Colin Cottage: I agree with that, and the Compulsory Purchase Association welcomes a more codified approach to temporary acquisition. At the moment, the large number of compulsory purchase orders do not allow for temporary possession at all. Where there is potential to introduce it through development consent orders, Transport and Works Act orders and so on, each of those particular instruments is drawn separately, so a codified approach is to be welcomed.
As Richard said, there are practical issues with temporary possession that need to be dealt with, including the interrelationships between different tenures in land, how to deal with an occupier of land when that land is taken temporarily, and what to do if buildings have to be demolished and so on. Those issues can be overcome, but they need to be looked at carefully if the Bill is to come into law and to not cause, rather than solve, problems.
Another issue that we are quite conscious of is the ability to take both temporary and permanent possession. We are of the view that a decision should be taken at the outset as to whether possession will be temporary or permanent. When a business or individual homeowner is faced with compulsory acquisition, and possession is initially taken temporarily but may ultimately become permanent, huge amounts of uncertainty are created. The person or business does not know how long the land will be taken for, and whether it will be for a temporary period or whether it will be permanent, and that makes planning difficult.
When temporary possession is taken initially, compensation is paid on the temporary basis. At the moment, because the system is not codified, there is no strict ruling about when compensation is paid, so the introduction in the Bill of advanced payments should be encouraged. But, of course, even if compensation is paid, it is on a temporary basis. If permanent possession is then taken, it may cause a problem for relocation or for funding a business move.
Richard Blyth: The concern for us, as we set out in our briefing, is that we do not think it is reasonable for the owners of private land to benefit from public investment in infrastructure. I am not a lawyer so I cannot tell whether that is in the provisions of the Bill but, from a lay point of view, that is an important point.
I was in another building in the Palace of Westminster yesterday talking about the issue of land hoarding before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The Royal Town Planning Institute is not really of the view that developers are necessarily guilty of as much land hoarding as is the case. There is a difficulty in situations where the most sustainable choice for the expansion of a town requires the conversion of greenfield land into housing land. That puts the owner of that land in an extremely powerful position. It would be regrettable in that situation if those owners were, as it were, to hold the city to ransom—to require very high prices for the sale of land for conversion to residential use—not only because of ideological concern but because finding money for schools, health centres, roads and other infrastructure is increasingly difficult.
What is vested in the increase in land value coming from the grant of planning permission is an extremely important possible source for trying to deal with the difficulties of the lack of infrastructure provision in relation to housing. It may assist with what Dr Blackman-Woods started with—the understandable resistance to large-scale housing development that communities feel when they find it means there is a longer queue for the doctor, it is harder to get a primary school place and there is more congestion on the roads and railways. In answer to that question, lower land prices would be useful. I would not advocate CPOs as a way of enforcing that, but they are a useful thing to have deep in the background.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Those were very interesting responses, but they did not actually address my question, which was, are the provisions in the Bill likely to bring more land forward for development and speed up the delivery of more homes, or are they too much at the margins to make any real difference? In which case, should we have a much bigger review of CPO to see whether we can get a better system?
Richard Asher: I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward. I think the simplification of the rules for CPO would be a major step forward.
A CPO, at the end of the day, is a draconian measure. It is taking people’s land without their consent in the public interest. That means there has to be a balanced approach. I think the complexity often deters people—particularly local authorities, in my experience—from using CPO powers. It also results in a number of CPOs being refused or rejected by the courts because of the complexity of the rules that surround them. There were two Law Commission reports in the early 2000s that went some way to making recommendations that, had they been implemented, would have speeded up the process.
There are also too many routes and different procedures. One of the most recent—the development consent order—is in its infancy, but it seems to be a way of delivering compulsory purchase quickly. That is to be commended. I think there should be a rationalisation of the process.
Richard Blyth: I think it is a very difficult balancing act. I commend the fact that the Government have taken on CPO as an issue to include in the Bill and the previous Act earlier this year. It is a tricky job and a long journey. One of the difficulties with this area is that if you were to propose some kind of utopian world, it might be that the perfect is the enemy of making improvements. We support the fact that the Government have made steps on a journey. Although it may not be completed now, they are very commendable steps for the time being.
Colin Cottage: My short answer to your question is no, possibly they will not. There are more underlying problems with the system. It is lengthy. It is uncertain for all parties—both for acquiring authorities and for the people affected by it. Acquiring authorities do not know how much it is going to cost them, because the process is uncertain in that regard, and people affected by compulsory acquisition do not know how much compensation they are going to get. That then causes conflict, and it does so from the outset.
The existing system is not helpful for reaching quick solutions. In fact, in many ways it encourages people to be fighting with each other from the outset. Ultimately, that increases the uncertainty, conflict and cost. That is really the issue that we have to look to address in order to give ourselves a more streamlined system. We need to try to bring dispute resolution to the forefront of the process, rather than it being very much at the back end, where it current is.
Once conflict has set in and disputes have got hard-grounded, there is the possibility of resolution through the tribunal. In itself that is an immensely costly process. Even a relatively cheap case will set a claimant client, who may be just a private individual, back a couple of hundred thousand pounds. There is an access-to-justice problem that needs to be overcome. Those costs are also a risk for acquiring authorities as they go through the process. Those are the kind of things we need to deal with to make the process more user friendly, both for acquiring authorities that are trying to bring forward housing development and for those whose land is acquired.
Tim Smith: The provisions are sensible so far as they go, but none of them tackle any single major obstacle to the delivery of land, so there is not going to be in the Bill a silver bullet for compulsory purchase to allow housing development to come forward. There is nothing in there that is hugely significant. What is on its face the most significant proposal—the statutory enactment of the no-scheme rule—is effectively what happens anyway. That is the position that has been established by case law. It is fine so far as it goes, but it does not go very far.
John Mann
Q Should there be additional powers to encourage house building that allow planning authorities to more easily compulsorily purchase land from within the public sector?
Richard Asher: I do not think more powers are required; we need a more streamlined process that allows the authorities to have more certainty. As Colin was saying, it is the uncertainty that is preventing a lot of authorities from using compulsory powers where they might otherwise decide to use them.
There have recently been several high-profile cases in which compulsory purchase orders have been rejected by either the Secretary of State or the courts. That is because there is not the clarity about the process that there needs to be. As Colin said, the uncertainty applies to the property owners as well. The longer the process goes on—CPO is a very lengthy process—the more uncertainty it creates for the landowners as well.
There is no silver bullet, but if we had a more streamlined system with clear milestones, that would go some way to encouraging local authorities in particular, because it is quite often local authorities that do not have the experience or capacity to deal with compulsory purchase orders. For large-scale projects such as High Speed 2, there is clearly the ability and understanding to deliver that. For smaller-scale housing projects for local authorities, there is still a fear of using compulsory purchase powers.
Richard Blyth: I commend Birmingham City Council, which has developed high-level expertise in this area and puts it to good use, and it is available to other authorities to use. The contracting out and sharing of excellence across the local authority sector makes sense, rather than a very small authority having to build up its own expertise on a specific matter, which it may not use very often.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q That is interesting in terms of good practice. Are there any other countries that do CPO better than we do and that we could look at?
Colin Cottage: The American system has some merits. At the CPA, we are looking at that at the moment. It is not perfect in all regards—no system is—but in the States, for example, projects are funded up front in a way that they are not in this country. That means that there are no public inquiries; the scheme just goes ahead, so people know they will be affected by it. Then there is an independent assessment of value in advance. Value is independently assessed, and that then forms the basis of an offer to the landowner. The landowner can challenge that, but there are cost implications if they do.
We had a chap by the name of Douglas Hummel, who came over from the International Right of Way Association, the American body that oversees compulsory purchase best practice. The results there are that in the order of 81% of land value compensation assessments are agreed immediately, and another 4% settle after a short period of time. Only the remaining 15% are then contested for any lengthy period of time. That is a much higher strike rate than we have in this country.
I am not necessarily saying that the American system is exactly the way to go, but there are examples of early dispute resolution. That is what it is in form: an independent valuation. In the UK system, the claimant puts forward his claim, and that is then contested by an acquiring authority, and you have a creation of conflict. An independent third-party valuation up front should really be considered quite carefully, and could lead to a reduction in conflict.
Richard Blyth: We are not necessarily going to look for places that do CPO better, because I think everyone would agree that it is better never to have any, but Germany has a land reorganisation system, where all the private landowners party to an urban extension of a town are put into a readjustment system, and the local authority then provides the infrastructure out of the increase in land value. It is then reapportioned.
That is quite useful. From my experience when I was in practice, it is very difficult if you are the landowner who gets the bit of land that will be the public open space, or the balancing pond or something, in a wider scheme. It can seem very unfair, but this kind of approach not only makes sure that all the infrastructure gets put in, it evens out the benefits across a clutch of landowners more fairly, so the first one does not get all the benefit. That is certainly impressive, in terms of how to ensure that infrastructure is provided in advance, so house builders can just get on and build the houses within the plots that are then made available, and are often of very different sizes.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Q I want to probe a little bit more on the issue of temporary possession. You expressed a concern in relation to uncertainty about the length of time that temporary possession might last. In the Bill as drafted, acquiring authorities will have to specify the total period of time for which they are taking temporary possession, and owners—freeholders and leaseholders—can serve a countering notice placing limits on that. How are you suggesting the Bill needs to be developed further to give even greater certainty? We have tried to address that in the drafting.
Colin Cottage: There are two issues. The first is on our reading of the Bill. There is still the possibility of taking both temporary and permanent possession, and that will create uncertainty for people affected by it, because, even if there is a period of temporary possession, it may be converted at a future date to permanent possession and they will have no control over that.
Secondly, we feel that, for freehold owners, six years is too long. Three years as a maximum is better. Notwithstanding that, the ability to serve counter-notices is correct and encouraging to development. Six years is quite a long period. If a business is dispossessed of its property for six years, that is effectively almost as good as a permanent dispossession because if you are away from your premises for six years, you will have restarted and be trading somewhere else. With that restriction, we encourage and welcome the proposal on the table.
Gavin Barwell
Q Can I just clarify one further point? The concern about both temporary and permanent CPOs is that one might be used and then another, which could create uncertainty over time. You might have a site where an authority needed permanent possession of part of it because it wanted to put, say, a goods yard on the second section and wanted part-temporary and part-permanent. Is your point about starting with one and then converting to the other?
Colin Cottage: That is correct.
On the other point of clarification, we do not have an issue when there is temporary possession of land, but a permanent acquisition of rights. That can work perfectly well also, so it is not an issue. The point is just when the same piece of land may be subject to temporary and then permanent. We think it should be one or the other.
The Chair
The point of the evidence sessions today is to inform Members better for when they go through the Bill clause by clause. Now is your opportunity to leave the Committee with one thought, which Members may like to deliberate on as they progress through the Bill.
Richard Blyth: On the issue of resources for local planning authorities, the Bill has provisions relating to the support of neighbourhood planning by local planning authorities. We have completed a survey of local planning authorities in north-west England that shows that between 2010 and 2015 there was a fall of 37% in planning policy staff. These are the staff who tend to get asked not only to provide the support for neighbourhood plans, but are under a deadline of completing a local plan by the end of March 2017.
I am a bit concerned that legislation is being used in a way that may not be possible to support in terms of the resources available to local planning authorities. Plan making is not supported by any fee income whatever. Planning applications have a certain element of cost recovery, but plan making is entirely a charge on the central resources of the local authorities, which—particularly unitary authorities—are hugely stretched by requirements relating to education and social care. That is what I would like the Committee to bear in mind when considering neighbourhood plan resourcing.
Richard Asher: Clause 23 proposes to repeal part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. We would oppose that repeal. Part 4 allows a claimant to make a further application up to 10 years after the land acquisition when the use of that land has changed and there has been alternative planning permission or use that was not contemplated when the land was acquired. The circumstances in which that occurs are usually when an acquiring authority has not used the land for the purpose for which it was compulsorily purchased and often there has been a change in planning policy that has allowed consent for alternative uses of the site. In those very specific circumstances, it seems appropriate for a claimant to make an application.
I think this has been brought forward because it has been used very rarely. I am not a lawyer, but the advice I have had from lawyers is that the way part 4 is worded makes it difficult for claimants to make a claim. My appeal would be for that not to be repealed but to be rewritten.
Colin Cottage: I am going to choose as my part of the Bill clause 22 and in particular proposed new section 6D(2) to (4). The concept of simplifying what is understood to be the scheme is absolutely the correct one. In a certain way, it has happened through the courts over recent years and what needs to be guarded against is complicating instead of simplifying the principle.
It is the CPA’s view that proposed new section 6D(2) to (4) is not necessary at all. The reason for that is that everything within those sections could be achieved under proposed new section 6E, where an acquiring authority can advance evidence as to the nature of a larger scheme. All that 6D(2) to (4) does is make specific reference to exactly the kind of arguments that could be put forward in 6E. When you start looking at some of the wording—for example, 6C, about relevant transport projects—rather than simplifying, it all looks horribly complicated and possibly capable of misinterpretation. That could lead to unfairness and certainly could lead to conflict in the courts, so the thing I would like Members to go away with and think about is, is 6D(2) to (4) absolutely necessary? We do not think it is.
Tim Smith: May I offer the Committee a second vote in favour of more resources for local planning authorities, but perhaps with a slightly different point of emphasis that comes from the Bill itself? The advantage of that is that it is very much in accord with the interests of both the public and private sector lawyers that the Law Society represents.
Successive proposals to change legislation have all brought about additional burdens on local planning authorities without a consequent increase in the resourcing available to them. To draw that point to one of the proposals in the Bill that is about conditions, the assumption that underlies the legislative provisions, as explained by the consultation issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is that there is an ongoing dialogue between applicant and planning officer about the planning application, including the suite of conditions that will accompany it if the proposal is deemed to be capable of being improved. Very often, that is not the case.
The sheer burden on planning authorities and planning officers to discharge the number of applications they have to deal with means that very little dialogue goes on between applicant and planning authority. I hope it comes across that I say that not critically of planning officers. They have an awful lot to discharge, and to expect that the solution to this problem will be a discussion between applicant and planning officer to approve pre-commencement conditions before they are imposed is to assume that there is plenty of time available to planning officers to engage in that discussion. We simply do not believe that that is the case. I give a second vote in support of what Mr Blyth said, but maybe for a slightly different reason.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for your time and for being excellent witnesses. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Gavin Barwell MP, Steve Evison and Tony Thompson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have until 4.45 pm for this session, and we have been saving the best for last. Would the witness introduce himself, even though everyone knows who he is?
Gavin Barwell: It is not just me, Mr Bone. I am Gavin Barwell, the Minister for Housing and Planning.
Tony Thompson: I am Tony Thompson, DCLG planning.
The Chair
Q Shadow Minister, do you have any questions?
Gavin Barwell: Mr Bone, before we go into questions, may I make a short statement? It might be helpful for the Committee. With your permission, I would like to make some introductory remarks in relation to amendments on plan making that we will be tabling. As we heard from the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the Government agree with the central thrust of the local plans expert group recommendations. Most of those recommendations can be implemented via policy changes, but some require a change in the law. Where that is the case, we will bring forward amendments to the Bill to make those changes.
Specifically, the amendments will do four things. First, they will place beyond doubt the requirement for all local planning authorities to have a plan, but with greater freedom on the detail in those plans, providing that they address strategic priorities such as housing and infrastructure. We will do that by requiring every local planning authority to have a development plan document—the documents that collectively make up a local plan—that sets out policies to deliver the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the area. Local planning authorities will have the flexibility to rely on the spatial development strategy, if they wish to do so. Additionally, they will be required to review those documents at intervals determined by the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the amendments will see more collaboration to address issues that require solutions across geographical boundaries, keeping plan making at the lowest level of government possible. We will do that by enabling the Secretary of State to direct two or more authorities to work together to produce a joint development plan document where that would ensure effective local planning in an area, for example, to address housing needs.
Thirdly, the amendments will see plans made at the lowest level of government, keeping things local where possible, by enabling the Secretary of State to invite a county council in a two-tier area to prepare or advise on a local plan where a district council has not done so. Fourthly, the amendments will allow us to take the opportunity to improve the accessibility of plans to local communities and others. We will do that by enabling the Secretary of State to set data standards for certain planning documents.
It has been clear from our discussions today that there is a great deal of concern about speculative development around the country. Clearly, one of the key ways in which we can deal with that is getting plans in place throughout the country. That is what we are determined to do. I will write to all members of the Committee when we table the amendments, putting in writing what I have described briefly to you today. However, I wanted people to have the chance to ask me questions about those amendments, as well as what is in the Bill.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. That sounds like rather a lot of amendments to the Bill. I have to say to the Government that it would have been far preferable to have had the amendments before the evidence session, so that our witnesses could have been questioned about them. I have had a word with the Clerk, and we will make them available as soon as possible to all Committee members. Perhaps the Opposition have something to say about this—I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Thank you, Mr Bone. I accept absolutely what the Chair has said. Nevertheless, I am very impressed by the new Minister’s reading of the Lyons report that Labour produced a couple of years ago, because it is gradually being rolled out.
I want to get a few points of clarification from the Minister about what he has just said. I totally agree about the requirement for local authorities to produce a plan. Will he put a particular time on that? Will plans have to be in place by a particular date? Furthermore, as the Minister knows, the duty to co-operate has simply not worked in practice, so the Opposition very much welcome having a direction to a council on producing a plan, because that is something that has slowed up development. However, I will stop there and get some immediate feedback from the Minister before my follow-up.
Gavin Barwell: If I may respond first to what you said, Mr Bone, I completely understand your sentiments. Obviously, we had a significant change of Ministers in July, so we wanted to take the opportunity to ensure that we could use the Bill as a vehicle for any other changes we might want to make to legislation. We are very conscious of the experience last year—or this year—with the Housing and Planning Act 2016, when a large number of Government amendments were tabled late on in the progress of the Bill. In this Bill, we wanted to ensure that any Government amendments were tabled before Committee consideration began. In an ideal world, obviously, they would have been part of the Bill by the time it was introduced, but I think people will understand why that was not possible. We have sought to ensure that people have as much time as possible to scrutinise the amendments.
In response to the question that the hon. Member for City of Durham asked, on the timing of intervention, the existing situation is slightly confused. There is no single place in statute where the duty to have a plan is clearly identified, but the Government have previously said that they will start to intervene early next year with those authorities that have not yet put planning documents in place.
In the Bill, partly we are providing a clear statutory requirement, but we are also broadening out the ways in which we intervene. At the moment, if we were to intervene next year under the existing framework, all we can do, in essence, is to intervene where a council has not met its own timetable for the process of producing a plan. Ultimately, the recourse is that we step in and produce the plan.
I do not think that is ideal, because I hope that we would all broadly agree that we are localists and want to see local plans driven from the bottom up. My ideal solution would be for every council to do that, but where they do not we must look at options where we could get a couple of councils to work together to produce one plan, or we could look at a county council potentially having a role; that might help.
There were a couple of intakes of breath, possibly from the direction of the Chair, when I mentioned county councils.
The Chair
No, no; I have no views on the matter.
Gavin Barwell: Clearly, these are powers that we do not want to use unless we absolutely have to, and hopefully the existence of the powers will help to focus minds and ensure that we get plans in place. In relation to the designation regime, in terms of the speed with which authorities are taking planning decisions, since the Government took those powers to designate I think we have only had to use them so far on three occasions. So, the existence of the powers has led to authorities raising their game and that is what we hope will be the case in this regard as well.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I suspect that we will come back to this issue in Committee, Mr Bone—
The Chair
Q Order. I assume, Minister, that these will be additional clauses at the end of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell: They will be additional clauses to the Bill, indeed.
The Chair
Q Because obviously where they come in the Bill will determine when we can debate them.
Steve Evison: I understand that they are scheduled to be taken after the clauses that are already in the Bill. So they will be taken then—
The Chair
Q Fine, because obviously we would like all Members to have as much time as possible to look at them before—
Gavin Barwell: Understood. I think we are hoping to table them tomorrow.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q I want to ask the Minister two further questions. We have heard from a lot of the witnesses about the difficult situation we are in with regard to funding infrastructure now. Infrastructure was in the Bill—or at least bits of stuff about the National Infrastructure Commission were in the Bill and have been taken out. I would just be interested to know whether addressing all the infrastructure issues is on the Minister’s agenda.
My second question is about the consolidation and review of CPO legislation, which also seems to be coming through from a number of witnesses as an issue that really needs to be addressed if we are serious about getting enough land into the system to deliver the homes that we need.
Gavin Barwell: I will take those two issues in turn, Mr Bone. Regarding the National Infrastructure Commission, obviously that already exists in shadow form and the Treasury has confirmed that we will make it an executive agency. A charter has been published, setting out how the commission will work. So, the Government still attach huge importance to the work that it is doing; we just came to the view that we did not need to create it as a statutory body. So that can be taken forward without the need for legislation. However, it has already produced a number of reports. Its work is ongoing. So, absolutely, our commitment to that organisation, but also to the wider piece of work on making sure this country has the infrastructure it needs to support the housing we desperately want to see, remains unchanged.
In relation to the second issue about CPO, I think in the sitting we just had it was really the latter evidence session that concentrated more on the CPO powers rather than the other issues. However, I think there was a general recognition that what is in the Bill is moving things in the right direction. There were some concerns about some points of detail.
We recognise that there is an appetite out there for a more comprehensive reform of CPO law, but our view was that at this point in time, when there is not a clear consensus about what form that comprehensive reform would take, we should concentrate on the elements that clearly are not working well at the moment and try to sort them out so the system is fairer and faster, and then look over time to see whether we can build a consensus about more radical reform.
The Chair
Q Just before we move on, I think Mr Evison ought to introduce himself, and Mr Thompson should also introduce himself, formally for the record.
Steve Evison: I am Steve Evison. I am deputy director for local plans and neighbourhood plans at the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Tony Thompson: Tony Thompson, DCLG planning, deputy head of development management division.
Jim McMahon
Q We have heard a lot—I think it was raised in almost every evidence session today—on the concern about resource in our planning teams. It is not only about the number of people to administer the process and existing applications but about the quality of expertise within teams as well, and reference was made to archaeological support and conservation specialities within those teams, too. This could be a significant new burden for local authorities at a time when they are struggling to keep their heads above water. What plans do the Government have to address that concern?
Gavin Barwell: I am not sure we would necessarily accept that there are huge new burdens in the Bill itself. There are obviously requirements to support councils with neighbourhood planning, and the new burdens doctrine certainly applied when they were introduced in the Localism Act 2011. More than £13 million has been paid out since 2012 to help with this. Under the current arrangements, a council gets £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood areas it designates, £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood forums it designates and £20,000 for plans when a referendum date has been set after the plan has been through the examination process, so there is financial support there.
Without getting into all that detail, I would very much accept the overall point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, which is that if we want to build the housing that we desperately need in this country, we need to make sure that our planning departments are adequately resourced. The Government have recently consulted on the level of planning fees, and we will be responding very shortly to the results of that consultation. Without pre-empting that response, I can say that in a lot of the meetings I have had in the first three months in my job, people from different bits of the housing world have said contradictory things to me, but I have had an almost unanimous message from local government and developers themselves on the need to get more resourcing into our planning departments. That is clearly an issue that I am looking at.
The evidence that we heard today identified one of the real challenges we have there: if we did allow fees to rise, how do we ensure that all of that money goes into added value in our planning departments, and is not used to allow local authorities to release funds elsewhere? I entirely understand the pressures local councils are under—I was a councillor myself for 12 years before becoming an MP—but I think, in my current job, if fees were to go up, we would want to make sure that every penny of the extra money raised was going into planning departments, increasing their capacity, both in terms of numbers of people and, as you say, expertise to deal with these issues.
There is also some interesting potential in the competition pilots that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will provide for. There is now some interest in the local government world. There are councils that are potentially interested in looking at whether they can take their planning department and offer it as a service that would cover a wider area. In some of the evidence we had earlier today, people sometimes said, “You might have a small district council that would only deal with one application of a certain type every year,” and if you were dealing at scale over a wider area, you might develop a greater expertise in some of those applications.
I think money is part of the problem, but we are also thinking, interestingly, about how we could restructure services and about how councils might work together on some of this agenda, which might also lead to some improvement.
Jim McMahon
Q A point was also raised about how the profession is perceived and whether it is really attracting talent and new people who want to come through. The suggestion was made that we should work with local universities to try to bring that through. Have the Government got any plans to raise the status of that? When it works well, it is developers that want to build a great product and planners that want to build great communities, and together they find a way of making it work, and everyone benefits from that.
Gavin Barwell: I am very interested in talking to the profession about that. You are obviously aware that we are publishing a White Paper later in the year. We are thinking about an overall strategy for how we get this country building the homes that the Prime Minister wants to see us building, and a key ingredient of that is ensuring we have enough people with the right skills, both within local councils’ planning departments, more generally in the planning world and in the construction industry—making sure that we have got enough people out there to actually build these homes. The skills agenda—ensuring we have got the right people in the right places with the right skills—is absolutely a cornerstone of the strategy that we need to build.
John Mann
Q I have two questions. The first one is on neighbourhood plans. In my area, we have more than 20 under way. The vast majority of land proposed in them or agreed in them to be allocated for housing would be classified under the previous aborted local plan—the rules were changed by the coalition—as windfall sites. My estimate is that there will be approaching 1,000 units of windfall sites just in Bassetlaw, just from those neighbourhood plans. That is a huge number. Every single one of the urban neighbourhood plans that I would like to promote, for which there is a clear community interest and a definable community that, according to my subjective judgment, would be keen and easily engaged—and there are a lot of them—would also classify entirely as windfall sites, despite the fact that Bassetlaw is required to find around 5,000 housing plots in its local plan. That is a huge number in addition.
Bearing that in mind, first, what additional resource is going to be made available to allow the creation of new neighbourhoods and the required planning work where no existing infrastructure—such as parish councils —is in place? Secondly, you rather strangely suggested that you would have county councils taking over where district councils were failing to deliver. I am not exactly sure what the core competence in planning in county councils would be for that, but will that power also apply to city regions?
Gavin Barwell: I will deal with your second question first; I would like a little clarity on your first question before I answer it.
In terms of city regions, the answer is “definitely”. Some of the devolution deals have already included an appetite to produce a strategic plan for the area. For example, in Greater Manchester—the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is nodding—rather than the 11 districts in the Greater Manchester area all producing their own local plans, they have made the decision to use the devolution deal to produce a strategic plan for Greater Manchester as a whole. From a Government point of view, that is extremely welcome, because it allows us to cover off all those areas with one plan.
It is not necessarily something that we would want to impose, but if, as part of the devolution process, areas have an appetite for looking at strategic planning across an area like that, there is a lot to commend it. I am looking forward to going to Greater Manchester soon to co-chair the Greater Manchester Land Commission and look at how that plan is progressing. It is potentially a very attractive idea.
John Mann
Q That is not quite the same as intervening powers.
Gavin Barwell: No. We are not taking it as an intervention power. It would be something we would look to negotiate on a case-by-case basis for each devolution deal. I stress that the county council power is not something I would anticipate using regularly, but if you look at the parts of the country in which there has been a struggle to produce local plans, it is often because you have two or three districts where land use is heavily constrained, because large amounts of the land are green belt or protected in some other shape or form. As the hon. Member for City of Durham was saying, the duty to co-operate is therefore not working and the housing need is not being reallocated around the area. Hypothetically, there may be cases in which having a county council look across the county and ask, “Where in the county could the housing need go?” might be a way to deal with it.
I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw: I see my job as the Minister very clearly. I do not want to be the person writing plans for local communities. As the Minister, my job is to say to local councils, “It’s your job to produce the vision and aspiration for the area.” I have one role in the process, which is to say, “I’m not going to let you duck the tough choices.” We have, as a country, to meet the need for housing in our country. As the Minister, it is my job to say, “You have to find a way to do it in your local area.” Whether that is several districts working together, county or individual local plans, or an agreement on a devo deal in Greater Manchester, I am open to different ways in which it can be done. I hope we all agree that we have not been building enough housing in this country for a long time, and that we have to find a way to make sure that we have that coverage throughout the country.
On your first question, were you asking about how we make sure we resource the groups that might produce the plans in urban areas of your constituency?
John Mann
Yes.
Gavin Barwell: Okay; understood. A £22.5 million support programme is available and has so far made more than 1,500 payments. All groups can apply for a grant of up to £9,000, but, as I represent an urban constituency, I absolutely recognise that it is more difficult to do this kind of work in more deprived areas—sometimes in more transient parts of the country as well—so additional funding and technical support is available to people in such priority areas. There is a national network of 132 neighbourhood planning champions who provide advocacy and peer-to-peer support. We recently launched an advertising campaign to promote the take-up of neighbourhood planning. That targeted a number of urban areas. I know that both you and Helen Hayes have spoken about this before, and are keen to push it. I am keen to listen to you and to think about whatever else we can do to help. I do not want the policy just to work in rural parishes, although the contribution it makes in those areas is important. It should be something for the whole country.
Steve Evison: May I just add a further point? For instances where the individual local authority has not written its plan, the 2016 Act enabled us to invite a Mayor or the combined authority to write the plan in place of the individual local authority. At the moment, that power is not available to county councils. Through the change, we are ensuring that we have the same options in two-tier areas as we do in areas with Mayors and combined authorities.
Chris Philp
Q I am pleased by the comments you made earlier about the plans to consult on increasing planning fees to get resources into local authorities. Could you lay out, for the Committee’s benefit, the proposed timetable for replying to the consultation? How will you go about enacting that when you have considered the results?
Gavin Barwell: That is a fairly simple one. The consultation has happened and we are waiting to respond to it. The realistic likelihood is that the response will come in the White Paper.
Chris Philp
Q When is the White Paper due?
Gavin Barwell: Later this year, so you will not be waiting long for an answer.
Chris Philp
Q Is your decision implemented by regulations, by a circular or by primary legislation?
Gavin Barwell: By regulations, I am told. That is something that we should be able to make progress on quickly, should we decide to.
Chris Philp
Q Okay. In the first session, we talked about giving planning authorities the ability to charge extra fees, which would be refundable if they failed to meet a certain level of service, such as the delivery of a decision by a certain time. Would that mitigate, in part at least, the concern you raised in your answer to Mr McMahon about money not seeping out through the back door?
Gavin Barwell: Clearly, that provides some protection for applicants. If they are paying more money and do not get a better service, they get a refund, but we are thinking about a wider issue, which is how to come up with a mechanism to ensure that all the money goes through to extra spending in planning departments.
For example, there might be a council department where 60% of the budget is funded through fees, and 40% comes through council tax. The council could take the extra fee income and just remove the money that was funded through council tax. Not a penny more would be spent on planning, but they would have released some money somewhere else for the local authority. Now, I can well understand their desire to do that but, in my job, I want to ensure that if more money comes in, it leads to more money being spent in total.
Chris Philp
Q The Minister is quite right to say that any extra money raised by way of fees should fund incremental extra levels of resourcing, and not simply replace money from general subsidy. To that point, do you agree that we might learn some lessons from the way in which business improvement district funding works? Extra money comes in by way of the business rate supplement but the local authority has to agree the existing level of service provision in writing in advance, and it cannot reduce that. The extra bid funding provides for incremental service levels. Could a similar approach be adopted in this situation? You would agree with the council, before they levied extra fees, that there are 30 people working in the council’s planning department and that the extra fees must lead to incremental hires on a cost basis. Would that be a way of avoiding the problem?
Gavin Barwell: There are a number of mechanisms. I do not want to get into too much detail speculating about them now, but that would certainly be a possibility. A very good point was made in previous evidence sessions that we are partly interested in the speed with which decisions are made on applications, but that is by no means the sole arbiter of how effectively a planning department is doing its job. We also want section 106 agreements to be reached speedily, planning conditions to be discharged speedily and local plans in place. There are a number of strands of work.
Chris Philp
Q I am glad that the Minister mentioned section 106 agreements. As far as I can tell from the Bill, the pre-commencement conditions get folded into the planning application. If I have read correctly, section 106 agreements will still come after planning permission. Am I right about that?
Tony Thompson: They are normally negotiated as part of the process. The expectation is that they would be agreed before the final decision notice is issued.
Chris Philp
Q But sometimes you get section 106 agreements that are not agreed or signed until after planning is granted. Sometimes it can be sequential. It is better that it is simultaneous, as you described, but sometimes, currently, it does happen sequentially.
Tony Thompson: Sometimes we encourage completion of the section 106 before the final decision is issued.
Chris Philp
Q So in that case, might you go further than simply encouraging it, as you do now, and introduce a provision in this Bill to make it a requirement? Rather than simply encouraging, why not compel, if you think it is best practice?
Tony Thompson: The expectation is that you should complete them, but there are sometimes very exceptional circumstances—perhaps a very significant development—where it is exceptionally agreed that the section 106 can be done afterwards. But in those circumstances, the expectation is that when the committee takes the decision to approve and issues that decision, there is a clear understanding of precisely what the section 106 should comprise, even though it has not actually completed the process. As I said, those are the exceptions rather than the rule. We wanted that element of flexibility, rather than a clear point that could not be exceeded.
The Chair
Q Order. I am sorry to interrupt. Would it be possible for you to write to the Committee giving us the numbers of how many are exceptional and how many are not? That would be helpful to the Committee.
Gavin Barwell: I am sure we could do that, Mr Bone.
Chris Philp
Q The Bill provides for the Secretary of State or one of his or her Ministers to proscribe certain kinds of planning conditions—to ban them from being imposed. Can you explain for the Committee’s benefit, Mr Barwell, what kinds of planning condition used currently you have it in mind to proscribe or ban using the new powers?
Gavin Barwell: My hon. Friend is quite right. Clause 7 tries to deal with two different issues. One is what we see as overuse of pre-commencement conditions; the second is taking a fairly wide-ranging power to proscribe certain types of planning conditions. I will give a brief answer and refer him somewhere where there is a lot more detail. Essentially, one thing that we want to stop is the use of conditions that essentially just replicate things that are either in the building regulations or other statements that legally oblige developers already. There are things that do not need to be restated as planning conditions because there is already a legal obligation on the developer, for example, to do them.
We published a consultation paper when we introduced the Bill that sets out in more detail how we would choose to use the regulations. The main point of reassurance that I would give the Committee is that it is clear on the face of the Bill that the power cannot be used in any way contrary to the NPPF. It cannot be used to water down protections clearly set out in the NPPF.
Chris Philp
Q But are there any specific planning conditions currently used that you have it in mind to outlaw, for illustrative purposes?
Tony Thompson: The consultation paper talks, for example, about something that requires the completion of the development. That is an issue about the certainty that could be achieved with that condition. In that particular instance, the expectation is that such a condition should not be imposed.
Chris Philp
Q Thank you. Can Mr Barwell comment on neighbourhood plans versus local plans? Are there any areas where you think it may be possible to give slightly higher weighting to neighbourhood plans than to local plans, provided that the neighbourhood plan is consistent with the overall level of housing supply predicted or required by the local plan, given that they are more local and have a bigger democratic mandate?
Gavin Barwell: It is really important that we do not see it as local plans versus neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood plans should be consistent with the overall planning policy framework set out in the local plan. I think the issue we have at the moment—as some of our witnesses say, the Bill goes some way toward addressing it, but we also need to consider policy changes that could help—is that you either do not have a local plan, or you have one that does not have a five-year land supply. At that point, the presumption in favour of development in the NPPF applies, and that can sometimes, although not always, lead to neighbourhood plans being overridden.
That is where the issue is. I do not think it is so much about the conflict between the local plan and the neighbourhood plan; it is about when you either do not have a local plan, or you have one that has not met the five-year land supply test. There are some things in the Bill that will help a bit with this, but I think the main thing we need to look at is how that five-year land supply test is working and whether we can provide some protection to local councils where perhaps there is suddenly a problem with one site and that therefore drops off. Overnight you thought you had a five-year land supply plan but you do not. Can we provide some protection where councils think about other options available to get things back up to the required level? Can we also ensure that, at least for a period of time after neighbourhood plans are approved, they afford stronger protection so that where a parish or a community in an urban area has worked really hard to produce its neighbourhood plan and, through no fault of its own, its local council does not have a five-year land supply, it does not find that its neighbourhood plan is immediately undermined by speculative development?
Chris Philp
Q Where there is a large local authority—we were just talking about having a local plan that covers the whole of Manchester, which is a gigantic conurbation—or indeed a large London borough like our own, Croydon, a local community might have a different view on where housing can be built in their neighbourhood from that of the local authority or, in the case of Manchester, the entire metropolis. There might be a conflict between where the local plan thinks housing should be built and the local neighbourhood—the parish or whatever it might be. Provided that the neighbourhood plan has enough houses in total, would you not want to give priority to the views of the local community, particularly given that that is backed by a referendum?
Gavin Barwell: Yes. As long as the neighbourhood plan is consistent with the overall strategic planning for the area in the local plan, the neighbourhood plan can absolutely fill in that level of detail. If a local plan says a particular town within the district will take a certain level of housing growth, the neighbourhood plan can fill in what the community feels are the right sites and the required mix of housing.
Chris Philp
Q I have a final question. One of the bugbears that people developing housing will have told you about are these wretched great crested newts, which apparently are endangered in Europe. The reason they are protected in the UK is due to European regulations, which of course will cease to apply relatively shortly. When the European regulations cease to apply to the United Kingdom, will you be minded as the UK or England and Wales planning Minister to remove or loosen the restrictions that the European Union has hitherto imposed on us?
Gavin Barwell: The first thing to say is that that moment is not yet upon us. We are still within the EU and at the moment all those European laws apply. Clearly, as the Prime Minister has set out, the decision we took as a country on 23 June will lead to some short-term challenges—it will change our role in the world and we are going to build a new future for the country around that—but it also offers some opportunities to look at the laws that we have and ask, “Are these the right laws for the UK?” I am sure that all Members of the House will want to ensure that we have proper environmental protections and proper protections for endangered species, but if we look at a law and say, “Actually the way that law is working in this country is disproportionate or leading to some perverse outcomes,” there will be an opportunity to review it.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, Minister. I hate to say this, but we are talking a little bit too much about the European Union, which is slightly outside the scope of the Bill. We should not really be banging on about Europe.
Gavin Barwell: Having served as your Whip for nearly two years, Mr Bone, I know you have been waiting for the chance to say that to me.
Kit Malthouse
Q Minister, you will have gathered from my line of questioning that I am concerned about protection for neighbourhood plans. I am pleased to see what is in the Bill, but part of the genesis of the Bill with the previous Minister was, I think, a case in Oakley in my constituency where an appeal was allowed five or six days before the referendum on the neighbourhood plan, notwithstanding that even at that late stage, under existing planning regulations, the plan was meant to have been taken into account. Why will this be any better?
Gavin Barwell: The honest answer is that this will not solve the problem in that very specific case, because as I understand it that appeal was determined days before the examination—
Kit Malthouse
No, before the referendum. It was post-examination.
Gavin Barwell: In that case it would help. This will make it clear in statute that some weight should be given to that emerging neighbourhood plan, because it had been through examination. So the inspector who was determining that particular appeal would be required by statute to give some weight to that emerging local plan.
What I cannot do—this is a complex area and it is important that I am entirely open with Members about the balance here—is give a guarantee. You will know that when any planning committee or inspector—or indeed I as Minister—takes decisions on planning applications, they have to look at all the material considerations. What the local plan says is an important material consideration What the relevant emerging neighbourhood plan says is an important material consideration. The views of the people who live in the area are a relevant material consideration. The national planning policy framework is a relevant consideration, and there may be other ones in particular cases. All those things have to be weighed, and I know from the cases that cross my desk every week that sometimes they are weighed in a way that would support the neighbourhood plan. You cannot guarantee that that will always be the case, but this change in the law would help in that situation because it would give some weight to an emerging plan and would ensure that, immediately a referendum is held, the plan is in place, whereas at the moment there is a period of time that you have to wait for the council to make the plan.
Kit Malthouse
Q Once this is in place, and hopefully it will go through—I do not know whether anybody has ever done any work on the consistency of decisions. Talking to colleagues, it is apparent that decisions about whether neighbourhood plans are given weight are a bit random, which is part of the problem with the rather wide definition of “giving weight.” It does not really mean anything and it seems to be at the whim of the individual inspector rather than a central policy. Once the planning inspector has had a look at the plan, it has been approved and gone through all the checking in Bristol, or wherever it goes, they should be broadly happy. That means it should be predictable that any appeal will not be allowed against the decision of what might be a different inspector, whereas in fact that is not the case. You get two different inspectors and they make different decisions.
Gavin Barwell: I would make a number of observations. I think this goes to the crux of the argument about this issue, and it is one on which we will no doubt spend a lot of time when we go through our line-by-line consideration and on Report.
Where there was a local plan that had a five-year land supply, with a neighbourhood plan beneath that, and a developer attempted a speculative application that was inconsistent with both, I would regard it as highly exceptional—you can never say “never” in planning—that such an application would be approved on appeal if it was turned down by the relevant local authority. Clearly, all the local planning policies would point against that application.
It might be useful for the hon. Gentleman to know—one of the difficulties of my job is that I never know which of my decisions have or have not been made public, so I will anonymise the place I am talking about—that I had three applications on my desk the other day, all in the same council area. The applications were affected by two different neighbourhood plans. The council concerned does not have a local plan with anything like a five-year land supply, so the presumption applies. In one case, I judged that not only was the neighbourhood plan an argument for turning down the appeal but that the application would also have eroded a key strategic gap between two settlements. There were two very strong arguments against, and in favour was the presumption for development, so I turned down the appeal.
In the other cases, although it was contrary to the neighbourhood plan, the land concerned was not green belt, prime agricultural land or anything else that you could give weight to, so I allowed the appeals on the basis of the presumption. That is what we mean when we talk about giving weight to different things. Although it is difficult for us, and I have also felt the frustration that the hon. Gentleman is expressing as a constituency MP and as a local councillor in the past—I know exactly where he is coming from—we have to recognise that the planning system is quasi-judicial. In the same way that you can take a case to a court of law and a judge will rule in a certain way and then you can appeal to the Appeal Court, which might take the same evidence and come to a different judgment, it can happen in the planning system as well. The judgment of different individuals looking at a particular case can be different.
Kit Malthouse
Q I understand that parallel, other than the fact that, obviously, in the judicial system each judgment is informed by the judgment before, whether or not it is taken by a different judge. Part of the problem with the Planning Inspectorate is that that common law aspect does not seem to take place.
Gavin Barwell: The chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate is one of the people I work with. If she were sitting here, she would say to you that one of her key objectives is to try to improve the consistency of decision making. She understands the concern.
Kit Malthouse
Q Would it be possible to find out how many appeals have been allowed—I know it is early days—in areas where there are neighbourhood plans and local plans in place?
Gavin Barwell: Where there are both?
Kit Malthouse
Yes, so we can see whether, as you say, this is exceptional or whether it is happening on a fairly regular basis.
Gavin Barwell: I will try to see whether we can find that out without disproportionate effort.
Kit Malthouse
Q That would be great. The second thing I want to ask about is the local plans. You are absolutely right about them being key. I think it is encouraging that you are going to be pushing for that in local areas. We have heard a lot of evidence today about the local plan, and the critical thing is the certainty of devising and defending a five-year land supply. There are two methods of calculation. Often you get challenged on one if you have used the other, so it might be helpful to have a single definition. I did not hear you talk, in your four things, about making five-year land supplies post-approval more defensible from a highly paid QC. Are you planning on including anything on that in the Bill?
Gavin Barwell: Those are issues more for policy than for legislation, but my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has correctly put his finger on one of the problems. It is not about not just the five-year land supply but how to objectively assess need, by which I mean how we calculate how many homes we need to build in an area. One of my key jobs over the next few months is to see whether we can find ways of taking conflict out of these processes. Can we find an objective way of calculating that need figure and identifying five-year land supply that gets rid of costly legal battles—a lot of money is currently spent on them—arguing the point with the developer who is trying to overturn a local plan? We need to have a process that attracts much more confidence, so that people know clearly where they stand.
The second issue is the one I have already alluded to, which is that if there is a change in the status of a particular site and a council therefore dips below the five-year land supply, we want to give them a window of grace where they can adjust to that, rather than them literally coming in to work one morning and finding that they are now open to speculative development, when they were not the day before.
Kit Malthouse
Q The final question from me is on whether you might consider including within the Bill a general anti-abuse clause on five-year land supply and the situation we outlined, where you can have a developer who gets permission on one site, fails to develop and challenges on another site on the basis that the five-year land supply has lapsed.
Gavin Barwell
We can certainly talk about those issues. There is a fundamental thing that we need to address in the White Paper. I am sure that one of the difficulties we will have as a Committee is that the Bill is going through Committee at the same time as we are developing some of the policy responses. I will do my best within the constraints I am under to try to keep Members informed about where we are going in policy terms and what we believe needs to be done through legislation and what can be done through changes in policy.
One of the fundamental questions that we have to apply ourselves to is that the changes that the Government have made to the planning system over the past six years have had a profound effect on the number of applications that have been granted. In the year to 30 June, our planning system in England granted permission for 277,000 homes. That is the highest figure since we started collecting the data in 2007, at the height of the boom before the great crash. The planning system in most parts of the country is granting lots of planning permissions, but there is an increasing gap—people cannot live in a planning permission—between the number of planning permissions that we are getting out of the system and the number of homes actually being built. We need to understand the cause of that gap.
My view, a few months into the job, is that there are a number of things here. Planning conditions are a factor, which is why we are trying to deal with them in the Bill, but I would not say to the Committee that they are the sole or even the dominant factor. There are issues around our utility companies and the time it takes them sometimes to put in the basic infrastructure on site that the developer needs before they start building. There are some real issues about developer behaviour, essentially.
I am interested in looking at policy vehicles that can ensure we speed up the rate at which applications get built out. One of the things that I am saying to the Home Builders Federation is, “You give me all the things that you say are slowing you up, and I will look into them. If I think there is a problem, I will deal with the problem, but once I have got through your list, I expect you to raise your game.” I am definitely interested in looking into that area, and perhaps as the Bill goes on we can talk about what the vehicles might be.
Kit Malthouse
That is encouraging. It is certainly the case that it is possible to make more money holding land and trading it than it is developing it. The other area to look at, I suggest, is developer finance, because none of them have got any balance sheets that they can use to expand their operations beyond where they are. I am grateful for the answers, Minister.
Helen Hayes
Q I have two quick questions. Can you address the concerns that Carole Reilly raised about neighbourhood forums and their lack of accountability, lack of infrastructure and resources and lack of clear identifiability to local communities? There were also issues raised—I have raised them on a number of occasions—about the intensity of resource you need genuinely to engage a diverse community in a deprived area.
Gavin Barwell: This is a real challenge and I am very open to talk to the hon. Lady, to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, and to others who have an interest in this matter about how we go about doing things. As I said, there is extra funding in deprived areas that a rural parish would not get. There are also people who have expertise in this area and who can engage with groups.
There is a democratic issue; I do not think we can get around that. Clearly, if someone is in a part of the country where there are parish councils, there is an automatic accountability and legitimacy that comes from that. Although we can now have parish councils in Greater London, I think there is only one in the whole of Greater London; we do not tend to have that kind of infrastructure. So there is a challenge in making sure that the plans that come forward have that legitimacy and are genuinely owned by the whole of the community, and not by a particular group of people who have a certain interest.
If we look at the average turnout in referendums on neighbourhood plans, it is running at about a third, which is actually not that different from the kind of turnout that we would see generally in local elections. That is quite an encouraging average figure in terms of trying to ensure that there is some legitimacy—I think the hon. Lady would regard her local council as legitimate on that kind of turnout—but there is certainly more that we can look to do and I am very happy to have a dialogue with her about that.
Helen Hayes
Q Thank you. I have a second question. The issue of permitted development rights continues to be a cause of concern. I appreciate that it is not within the scope of the Bill, but it has a direct bearing on neighbourhood planning, so it is essentially a way in which development can take place that is not allowed for in a local plan and that has not been discussed by the local community, who have not been consulted about it. It is under the radar, without anybody having any say about it at all. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans at all to address the concerns that have been raised about permitted development rights.
Gavin Barwell: I would say two things there. There is some limited scope for local say. The main one that the hon. Lady is probably talking about is the office to “ressy”, or residential, permitted development. There you do have to give a prior approval application to the council. The council can only look at certain limited things such as flooding; there is a list of four or five things that can be looked at. It is not a full planning application, but there is at least a little bit there.
I tried to touch on this in my response to the Second Reading debate, so I understand some of the concerns that people have. You do not get the affordable housing contribution, for example, that you would get if there was a full planning application. However, I think it is demonstrably the case that permitted development has delivered additional homes that we desperately need.
I went on Friday night to see one in central Croydon. It is a building called Green Dragon House that was essentially an old office building with very low levels of occupancy and it has been converted into 119 homes. In my community, those homes are desperately needed and I am not sure—in fact, I am pretty confident that if we had left things as they were, many of the buildings that have been converted would not have come forward. Now, they are not all as good quality as Green Dragon House, so I am perfectly prepared to accept that there are challenges here.
I suppose the point I tried to make in response to Opposition Members on Second Reading is that if you genuinely believe that there is a really urgent need to get us building more housing, you have to look at some measures that you would not take if you did not feel that urgency was there. That is the argument about PD. However, the one thing that this Bill does on it is uncontroversial, I would have thought, which is to say, “Let’s make sure we get good data.” At the moment, all we know is the number of applications that have gone in, but not how many homes they are delivering. So, the one measure in this Bill on this issue is trying to ensure that we collect data on how many units the policy is delivering and then, as we debate our different opinions on this policy, we can at least be informed by what the output is.
Helen Hayes
Q So you do not have any further plans at the moment, either by way of additions or amendments to this Bill, or within the White Paper—?
Gavin Barwell: No. There is an issue that I think we have consulted on, which is around the office to “ressy” thing and whether you should be able to do it potentially through demolition rather than just refurb, but there are no plans to amend this Bill further to change the PD rules.
Jim McMahon
Q During your introduction, you said that part of the reason why the amendments were so late in coming was actually change of positions and looking at the Bill with a fresh pair of eyes, and that was the result. Given the tone of the contribution, I take that at face value, and I appreciate the comments that you have made.
When you were looking at the Bill and at opportunities to enhance it further, did you consider the roles of listed buildings in that? In my constituency, we have a very old mill—apparently one of the oldest mills with a concrete floor, if anyone is interested in those kinds of things—but it is a blight on the local community. Last year, there was the death of an 18-year-old, who fell through the floors, because the mill is so unsafe. The fire service, the council and the police have all put a notice on the building, because it is absolutely liable to cause another death very soon, but its heritage value for the experts in London, who do not have to live in its shadow, maintains that it should stay there. It is scuppering development on the site—a £248 million tram system runs alongside it, with a station there ready for development. Did you consider that the process is stifling the development of what should be attractive places to live?
Gavin Barwell: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that that is not an issue that I have looked at in particular, but if he wants to write to me to set out his concerns, I would be very happy to take that forward. He knows his community and what the issues are, better than anyone who is adjudicating on such things from a distance. I am very happy to help him to get that issue resolved.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Q I want to pick up very quickly on something that Mr Thomson from the CPRE talked about, which was about councils having to chip away at the green belt to deliver the provision. He mentioned that often they do not feel that they are getting the backing of the Secretary of State. I am aware that several local authorities in my area have jointly commissioned a report to grade areas of green belt, based on the extent to which they make all five functions in the NPPF. They are basically suggesting that some areas do not have as much value as others, and they are planning to use the report to recommend parcels that can be used to facilitate building. So there still seems to be a lot of confusion in local councils about how the green belt rules are applied. Is there any provision in the Bill to strengthen that? The former Housing Minister was great and came to my constituency to explain to one of the councils how things needed to be implemented, but it still does not seem to be filtering through, and I am guessing that that could be the case in a lot of councils.
Gavin Barwell: At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill that touches directly on the green belt. What I would say to my hon. Friend is that the national planning policy framework is very clear on this. Basically, there are two issues: one is how an authority deals with an application for development on the green belt. Essentially, with the exception of certain very limited uses, which are defined in the NPPF, development is inappropriate in the green belt. The second issue and the one to which he is alluding, I think, is when you want to change the boundaries of your green belt. The NPPF has a very clear presumption against doing that, too. It should only happen in exceptional circumstances, and one of the features of green belt should be its permanence.
What we asked local authorities to do—again, I think it is very important that these decisions should in most cases be made locally—is to assess objectively the need for housing in their area. When they have done that, they need to look at how they can meet that need. It is certainly possible that there are authorities for whom meeting that need without making use of prime agricultural land, green belt or some other kind of protected land is not possible. It is then a judgment for them about what they should do. They might decide, “We will release some land and make some changes to our local plan in order to meet the need.” However, they might decide, “Actually, we don’t believe that it will be possible to meet this level of need without having too detrimental an effect on these particular sites, therefore we will provide for less than our level of need,” and when an authority does that—the hon. Member for City of Durham has now left the room—it should certainly be having conversations with neighbouring authorities about whether they are able, through the duty to co-operate, to take up some of the slack.
The inspector’s job is to test whether authorities have applied that policy correctly. There are examples of local plans in which an inspector has accepted an authority’s judgment that it is not able to meet the full level of need for those kinds of reasons, and for others the inspector has said, “Actually, no, there are other things that you could have looked at, but didn’t look at. You need to go back and look at them.” Some people think that there is an automatic presumption that the green belt can never be a justification for not meeting the full level of need, but that is not true; nor is it true that it automatically is either, if you see what I mean. The test is there in the NPPF, but the circumstances have to be exceptional.
Craig Tracey
Q As a quick follow-on question—where a constituency like mine comes under pressure, because we are a rural constituency surrounded by big areas we are having to co-operate with, what are the mechanisms for challenging their assessed need? That is where the calculation figures are often seen to be well away from what we would expect.
Gavin Barwell: One of the things I was alluding to for Mr Malthouse was whether we can look at a more objective method of saying what need is. The starting point, it seems to me, is the household projection figures. One of the concerns people raise with that is that we have taken the decision we took on 23 June, so migration levels may well be lower. It is worth saying that what the projection numbers do is look at past trends and roll forward, so they are already assuming a reduction in the level of migration over the time period and they are updated every few years.
The starting point, as I said, is those household projection figures. Then if I were running a council, I would be looking at what the market is telling me. In other words, what is the ratio of house prices to salaries in my area? If that ratio is very high, we have not been building enough houses; so we need to do a bit more than the household projects would suggest, if we are going to try to get that ratio down. To me, those are the two things you would be looking at, but if what is being said is that it would be helpful to have more certainty about what those numbers are, and to have more confidence in them, I agree with that and that is something we are looking to do.
Mrs Villiers
Q Obviously the key concern that has been raised by some of the campaign groups, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is that local authorities are being driven to propose green belt development because they cannot meet their targets and they cannot make the duty to co-operate work. So in order to avoid the risk of having their local plan rejected altogether they are putting forward green-belt or greenfield developments. What is the incentive on a local authority—on the other end of a duty to co-operate —to accept somebody else’s housing targets? I do not see how the duty to co-operate can work effectively if you are saying that local authorities have to somehow persuade their neighbours to accept their housing needs. I would be grateful if you could explain how the duty to co-operate is supposed to work.
Gavin Barwell: There are some local authorities that genuinely want to go for growth, and therefore they are almost happy to take extra housing because they have made a strategic choice that that is what they want to do in their district. Those are probably not the kinds of authorities in the areas my right hon. Friend and I represent or the areas immediately around them, where land is very much at a premium. One of the things we need to look at in the White Paper is what more we can do to provide those kinds of incentives. To me, a lot of that is about much more explicit links between housing numbers and infrastructure. I actually want to get down to the level of having very bespoke conversations with individual authorities saying, “If you were going to take an extra x thousand in your area, what does it need to make it work? What would make it politically acceptable?” and then trying to have those kinds of bespoke deals.
There is also a real role for all of us to provide some political leadership here. What many people imagine is that if we do not build the homes, the people will not come. Actually, evidence in London in recent years shows that that is not true; they do come, and you end up with people living in beds in sheds at the end of gardens and things like that. We do not want to live in a city like that, so Mr Tracey is absolutely right—we need to have confidence in the numbers and we need to believe that they are genuinely what is going to happen in a given area. But then there is a moral duty on us to make sure that we provide housing, once we have confidence in the figures, to meet that level of need.
Sometimes that is going to involve difficult choices. I have tried to avoid being parochial so far, but I will just give a Croydon example. In my constituency—it has been really interesting to see over the nearly 20 years that I have been involved in local politics—essentially an explicit choice has been made to build very high in the centre of Croydon in order to protect our green belt. If someone had come to Croydon 20 years ago and said, “We are going to have seven or eight buildings over 40 storeys in the town centre,” they would have been laughed out of town. Confronted with either not meeting the housing need we have—people can see the housing need all around them—or building on our remaining parks or green belt, people have actually said that this is a better option. It is near where the infrastructure is—the East Croydon station route into London and all those kinds of things.
In some parts of the country there are no easy ways of doing this. It is a question of having an honest debate about what the options are. I certainly believe that in parts of London higher density is part of the solution. Even that is not an easy sell to people because it does change the character of an area, but we need to think—what are the alternatives?
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that time has beaten us in this session as well. I thank the Minister and his team for the full and frank engagement with the Committee, which is really appreciated.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 1 month 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
Concentrix: Tax Credit Claimants
(8 years, 1 month 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
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Concentrix in dealing with tax credit claimants.
This is the first time that I have spoken in a debate in this Chamber that you have chaired, Mr Nuttall, and I look forward to it.
Just hours after I successfully persuaded the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee to table this debate, Concentrix’s contract was ended. I called for this debate because the company has bullied people who depend on tax credits and targeted single mothers, many of whom have had their tax credits stopped without fair notice. Concentrix is paid by results, which means that it has a financial incentive to stop payments. Its decisions are frequently made on the basis of wrong information, and people who depend on tax credits to make ends meet have been left without funds for weeks while errors have been corrected, causing hardship for them and their children.
I thought that this debate would focus on those shocking failures, and that I would use the time to share how the lives of my constituents, and the constituents of many Members here, have been made miserable by the cavalier way in which Concentrix has used the flimsiest of excuses to end tax credit claims, and by its shocking customer service, which has left claimants hanging on to telephone calls for hours without resolution. However, since then, there have been many parliamentary opportunities to highlight such stories. I am glad that the pressure from me and other MPs has led the tax authorities to end Concentrix’s contract. I am particularly glad that the National Audit Office is to look into its operation. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am confident that the NAO will get to the bottom of whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or Concentrix is responsible. I think it possible that we have sometimes blamed the company when we ought to have blamed the Government.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Concentrix took the approach of stopping payments without warning. Many single mothers in my constituency have told me that they discovered that their payments had stopped only by checking their bank accounts. Does she agree that HMRC should not have given Concentrix the authority to stop payments, and that the process must stop?
Fiona Mactaggart
I think that the best thing that we can do with this debate is ensure that lessons are learned from this failure, and that the whole Government act on them. It is time to get answers from the Treasury about the extent to which it, rather than Concentrix, is responsible for the failure.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has done a great service in securing this debate. I had a problem, to say the least, over Christmas with a family who had no income for about eight weeks. We spent most of the Christmas period trying to get that family some money. Does she not agree that these matters should not be farmed out to private companies? They are far too sensitive. The Government should have another look at this, and the responsibility should be taken in-house. It should also be noted that HMRC has taken on another 30 staff; that is one heck of a cost as well. Another company that should be investigated is Capita, which is doing exactly the same thing because it has been set targets.
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend is right that we need to work out what Government should do. I will deal with that point later, but it is clear that part of the problem with Concentrix is that if people were notified, they often did not believe what they were told, because the Treasury insisted that Concentrix use its own branding on the letters, so people got letters from some company asking for extensive data. I would have treated that as phishing and thought, “This is someone trying to scam me.”
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is absolutely right that we need to learn the lessons from this mess. Many of my constituents have been left in utter financial disarray by having been left for a time with no income. Does she share my belief that we need reassurances from the Minister that the Government will take every step necessary to sort out this shambles and help those who have been left in a mess?
Fiona Mactaggart
Indeed. Not only that, but the Government ought to ensure that it does not happen again. There is a risk that it could, not just in the Treasury but in other Departments. The reason why I persisted with this debate after the Treasury abandoned the contract is that I believe that this is an opportunity to learn lessons that should be spread throughout Government.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to point out that this is not just a failure of practice by Concentrix but a policy failure by Government. The deliberate intention of the contract was clearly to target single parents, on the basis of assumptions that they were living with a partner and not reporting it. That is an acute, intimate and sensitive issue, and it is important in such cases that practice is handled with great care. There is absolutely no evidence of such care. This is returning to the attitude that single women bringing up children must not be respectable and need to be investigated. Surely that is something that the Government need to rethink and re-learn.
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a gendered contract, and the Government did not stop to think—or maybe they did think about it, and thought that women in such circumstances should be blamed. All Members here will know that their constituents feel harassed, scared and pinned up as targets as a result of how things have been done. It is not acceptable in a civilised society to treat mothers in that manner, and it is mothers who have been treated badly.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree that the majority of my constituents who have been in touch are single mothers, but single fathers have also been affected. One constituent who came to me looks after two children and works 16 hours a week, and he received no money for six weeks. Ultimately, it is the children in those households who suffer. The Government must ensure that this does not happen again.
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One consequence for a number of children is that they have lost their entitlement to free school meals, so they have suffered doubly as a result of what has happened to them.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is being extremely generous in giving way, and we are all grateful to her. I had a case in which a single mother was accused of living with a former tenant who had moved out in 2014. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that although issues must be investigated, to do so on the basis of allegation, without evidence, and to stop payment, is not really a satisfactory way for Concentrix or anyone else to operate?
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will try to make some progress, so that he can see what I want to say about that kind of issue. Decisions were certainly made on the basis of inadequate evidence, in a way that I believe was actually illegal under the Tax Credits Act 2002, and should not have been permitted.
Fiona Mactaggart
I am trying to make progress, but I will give way once more.
Ms Eagle
My right hon. Friend is being extraordinarily generous. I have had many cases in which precisely that has happened. Single mothers in Wallasey have been accused of living with a previous tenant in a house that they happened to rent at a particular time—allegations so absurd that they had not even thought of them. Their benefits have often been stopped for weeks and weeks, and they have had no access at all to funding, which has forced many of them to go to food banks. What kind of Government allows that to happen?
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend is right that we need to focus on the responsibility of the Government, because that is what we Members of Parliament can most influence. The first lesson for the Government is that payment-by-results contracts should be avoided. Concentrix staff were under pressure to perform—we are told that they were expected to open 40 to 50 new investigations a day—so they regularly proceeded on totally flimsy evidence.
I spoke to Concentrix about the source of the evidence it received, because I could not really believe that a company would proceed on the basis of such information —“Somebody else once rented this flat”, “The electoral register has this person on it”, “Someone has had their post sent to this address,” and so on. The director of Concentrix told me:
“HMRC provide Concentrix with the claimant cases that they believe qualify for review.”
So the source of the evidence is HMRC. He continued:
“These cases are selected by HMRC based on its own internal system which flags where there may be the potential for fraud or error. There were 1,497,000 cases provided from the Authority based on their initial assessment of risk or error and fraud.
Concentrix subsequently runs a further series of checks to substantiate the potential risk of fraud and error and to refine the list of cases that are then checked. In the latest campaign, Concentrix deselected 80% of the cases originally provided to us by HMRC. This means we contacted 324,000 and the remaining 1,173,000 were not worked by Concentrix.”
According to him, HMRC even pressed Concentrix to investigate cases in which it could not name the alleged co-resident.
We have been blaming Concentrix for using flimsy evidence when I think that the source of that flimsy evidence is actually HMRC. My first question to the Minister is: where is the so-called evidence sourced from? Is it the Post Office, credit agencies or out-of-date electoral registers? Is it true that the Treasury pressed Concentrix to pursue cases with so little data that the alleged co-resident’s name was not even known? When tax credit claimants were written to about the investigation of their case, the alleged co-resident was not named in that letter. Many of my constituents have said, “How can I prove a negative?”. Of course, if they had got through on the telephone, they would have been told the alleged co-resident’s name, but getting through on the telephone was not straightforward, as we all know.
I remind the Minister that section 16 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 gives the power to amend or terminate an award where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an award is wrong or that there is no entitlement. It also gives the power to request information or evidence where there are grounds for believing that the award might be wrong. That law is clear. It was confirmed in an Upper Tribunal judgment by Judge Wikeley that the burden of proof for stopping a tax credit award lies with HMRC, but that was reversed in these cases: the authorities proceeded to close claims without reasonable grounds that they could evidence. They demanded excessive evidence from applicants who sought to disprove allegations that they had claimed the wrong amount for childcare or were living with an unnamed partner.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I raised the important question of Concentrix back in February. One of my vulnerable constituents, a single mother of three, was put on trial and lost her tax credits for six weeks over Christmas, only to be informed that she had no case to answer. I ask the right hon. Lady to join me not only in condemning the practices of Concentrix, which she is doing more than capably, but in calling on the Government to renounce this terrible, abhorrent practice entirely.
Fiona Mactaggart
The point is that if we do not manage to get answers from the Minister, we will end this contract but will be walking into the risk of future contracts making the same kind of mistakes, including targeting single mums in a way most of us find completely unacceptable, and breaching the law that provides the power to end benefits and so on. This situation really is not tolerable, and it is up to us to ensure that it never happens again in any aspect of Government administration.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising this important issue. I, too, have constituency cases with which I could regale this Chamber. Does she agree that there is a fundamental danger in a model that has a private organisation, which is accountable to its owners and has a duty to make profits for them, providing a public service, where the accountability must be to the public and the first duty must be to provide the public with a full and proper service?
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman is right. Civil servants are trained to conform with the law. How can Ministers ensure, in this contract or in any future contracts, that there is not a parallel reinterpretation of the law by a private company? When the Minister was informed about the Wikeley judgment, as I hope he was, what did he do to ensure that all future decisions would conform to the law? Civil servants are generally trained in a culture where the law is the guide to how they work; I am concerned that Concentrix staff were not operating within such a culture. There is a real risk of letting out similar contracts in future that do not operate within such a culture.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the problem is not just with this contract but with all results-based contracts in which there is essentially a commission? Atos was under a similar contract and we all know the terrible damage it did to sick and disabled people. Although it is welcome that we are ending the Concentrix contract in May 2017, the UK Government now need to stop all such contracts and fundamentally review the entire process.
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman is right that we should stop such contracts, but we also need to find out the extent to which there has been a failure of policy underlying the Concentrix contract. I agree that the very nature of the contract—having a private company asking for those details—was inappropriate. So was the payment-by-results aspect, for example, and the fact that when the company was under pressure there was no way of bringing in civil servants to help by answering the telephone and so on. Such problems are inherent in that kind of contract, but some of the difficulties must have been created by the way the Treasury and HMRC operated. They provided the company with totally flimsy evidence and suggested it should be investigated. In effect, they ran a campaign against parents who were doing the terribly difficult job of bringing children up on their own. We should be ashamed of ourselves for targeting that group of people, who are resilient but in some ways vulnerable. The job of broader society is to help them in their task of bringing up the next generation.
Many claimants received a letter requiring council tax records, a year’s worth of bank statements, pay slips, childcare costs, divorce papers and household bills. Many people, as I would have done, treated such requests from a private company as probably a phishing exercise by a fraudster. Those people discovered within 30 days that their conclusion was an expensive mistake: their tax credits were stopped. All my constituents who had their tax credits stopped eventually had them restored.
I stress that it happened eventually. It was often after hours on the telephone and the intervention of my staff. Those hours on mobile phones cost an enormous amount for some of these people, who at the time had no money to speak of apart from the meagre wages they earned from their part-time jobs.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. My constituent’s tax credits were stopped erroneously. She was down to her last £5 and was told to send in documents by recorded delivery. She had to decide whether to feed her children or send the documents. The Government really must rethink their policy and respond to such people, so that we know it will never happen again.
Fiona Mactaggart
The problem is that the Minister and his civil servants cannot imagine what it is like for someone to have to choose between feeding their son or daughter and posting an important letter that will get next month’s money in. They cannot imagine a parent having so little money that that is the choice they face. When people’s tax credits were stopped, they were eventually restored. Although they can get additional bank charges and so on paid back—I have managed that on behalf of constituents—they often cannot redeem their credit history, which makes the rest of their life more expensive, so there are serious long-term consequences.
Kate Green
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should reconsider the situation wherein, in the face of error by Concentrix, my constituents were asked to apply for a mandatory reconsideration of the decision? That is disgraceful. The fault was not theirs.
Fiona Mactaggart
Indeed, and if we look at the figures for mandatory reconsideration we can see that it is overwhelmingly decided that our constituents were in the right and the decision makers in the wrong.
It is striking that the process was also expensive for those who complied. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) pointed out, sending precious documents by registered post costs money, as do printing inks. People also have to pay fees to have documents reissued. Yet in every case HMRC had initially decided that the application was justified. We are not talking about initial applications for tax credits; we are speaking on behalf of people who are trying to continue to receive them. The burden of proof has to be on HMRC.
Catherine McKinnell
My right hon. Friend is making a vital point. Several of my constituents were asked by HMRC to prove a negative—something that was not, in fact, the case—and had no way of doing so. Some of the people they were accused of living with were not alive.
Fiona Mactaggart
Indeed. There is an important principle in the UK’s administrative law that public authorities act on the basis of evidence and law, and that if they dispute someone’s claim, they should have a good reason. The HMRC charter says that people have a right to be treated as honest. Well, the lone parents who were targeted did not feel that they had that right. Nearly a third of claimants applied for a mandatory reassessment, and they were overwhelmingly successful. Will the Minister guarantee that in future the Government will put acting legally before getting money out of citizens who do not have any? That is the question at the heart of this debate: illegal action has screwed money —excuse my language—out of citizens and damaged their ability to do their main job, which is to look after their families.
HMRC implies that the reason for dropping the contract is a sudden decline in the level of customer service, in particular the backlog of 200,000 incomplete cases and the terrible performance of Concentrix’s telephone service. Concentrix responded by saying that the case numbers were far above predicted rates. In August this year, they were nearly five times the forecast rates, which were developed by HMRC. One contributor to the backlog was HMRC’s automatically terminating 45,000 cases—guess when? In the week beginning 8 August. Where do mums and dads go in that week? They go on holiday, because it is the only time they can take their children on holiday, because otherwise they are at school. The Government have form when it comes to sending out such letters and starting consultations at the beginning of August. If the Minister can say that one of the things he is going to do is ensure that this nastiness in August will end, I think we would all be pleased to hear it.
Why were the predictions of the number of cases so brutally wrong? Why was the letter sent out on 8 August to terminate all those cases on the grounds that they had not fulfilled their information returns? In management terms, it would be more sensible to spread such a policy across the year, so that when someone does not respond to an information return they get a notice at the time. I do not believe that all the cases were started in August. I do not believe that thousands and thousands of people made their first tax credit application in the week beginning 8 August, yet so many of their cases were terminated in that week, causing extreme chaos in a situation that was already brutally chaotic.
It seems to me that the discovery of a service failure just after I sought this debate and just after the Department was called before the Work and Pensions Committee does not bear looking at. A cursory look at Mumsnet web chats, at the Child Poverty Action Group’s advice logs or at all the letters that the Minister and civil servants have received from MPs would have made it clear that the company’s performance has been unacceptable for a long time. Will the Minister ensure that any new contracts with private companies will permit a swift end if performance is substandard and ensure that the Government get information about the standards that are achieved in a timely fashion?
The current contract states that if Concentrix delivers less than 97% accuracy, its commission will be reduced, but I have discovered that in this case accuracy does not mean making the right payments to the right people; it means jumping through the hoops devised by HMRC. Let us have a real definition of accuracy, which is that the right payments should go to the right people and should not go to the wrong people. We all accept that people should not be paid tax credits wrongly, but accuracy must be judged on the real results, not on some process that is extremely burdensome.
I am concerned about the fact that, as my hon. Friends have said, the burden has particularly hit women and mums. What equality impact assessment was done at the start of the contract? We know that David Cameron called such assessments “bureaucratic nonsense”, but it seems to me that this issue is crying out for one, because someone should have thought about the fact that mums would be targeted. Of course, some dads were drawn into the net, and I am not denigrating their experience in any way, but it is not acceptable for Government policy to lay a particular burden on mothers in such circumstances.
Angela Crawley
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the UK Government have prioritised austerity measures? More than 80% of women have been adversely affected by this austerity-driven Government’s welfare reforms and cuts.
Fiona Mactaggart
Not only are more women affected than men, but they are affected by more costs than men. Four fifths of the savings that the Government have made through their so-called austerity programme have been contributed by women. One thing for which I was really proud of the previous Labour Government was that they increased the amount of resource that went into women’s purses compared with men’s wallets. Through measures such as child tax credits, they dealt with maternal poverty pretty effectively. The current Government are doing their jolly best to reverse that progress.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. However, this is not just about mums, important as they are; it is about the impact on their children. My constituent Sinead is a single parent. She went from receiving £122 child tax credit to absolute zero. She is paying off a crisis loan and that is impacting on her relationship and her ability to be a great parent to her five-month-old child. There is also Caroline, whose two children are in nursery. She is thinking of quitting her job because she cannot now pay the nursery fees. This issue is having an impact on children as well as mothers.
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, for most of the victims of this situation, there has also been a significant effect on their self-confidence and on their reputation. Some get these letters at very stressful times in their lives—following a difficult divorce, while they are trying hard to separate themselves from a violent partner or after childbirth. The behaviour of Concentrix just added to their stress.
Christina Rees
My right hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. She talked about the burden of proof. One woman claimant in my Neath constituency came in to see me because her payments had been stopped, as she had not replied to a letter that she had not received and there were no follow-up letters. Where does the burden of proof lie there?
Fiona Mactaggart
The law is clear that the burden of proof lies with the Government and they need to have a proper reason to believe these things. As we know, however, many of the reasons why investigations were initiated were not what any court would describe as proper. That is a fundamental problem.
The Government announcement of the termination of the contract sought to reassure
“customers who have had their tax credits stopped that we will prioritise their cases, and make sure that they are processed as quickly as possible.”
That was a nice thought, was it not? However, Concentrix has informed me that, just on mandatory reconsideration cases, which were returned to HMRC on 19 September, nothing at all was done until 3 October. So not only is Concentrix operating on the basis of really flimsy information; it is also telling lies to Parliament and to the Government, because I do not consider that to be prioritising cases and making sure they are processed “as quickly as possible.”
I hope the Minister will answer the specific points that I have raised. This contract has been something that, frankly, we should all be ashamed of. The way that we have treated the mums and dads on low pay who are bringing up the next generation has been shameful. And actually, although I asked for this debate about the performance of Concentrix, the responsibility for this situation fundamentally lies with the Treasury and HMRC. The process is clear. Again, I quote Concentrix:
“Whilst the initial decision to halt an individual’s tax credit claim may, at the end of the process, prove to have been unnecessary”—
it did not feel “unnecessary” to the victims—
“the process is set by HMRC. Whether it is Concentrix managing this process or HMRC directly, the same hurdles and challenges are experienced because of the information held by HMRC at the outset.”
It seems to me that this goes to the heart of the Government’s use of information about citizens. The Government have a responsibility to assist citizens in giving them the information they require in order to assess their entitlement to something such as tax credits. The Government did that at the beginning of a tax credit claim, but their process for doing that as a tax credit claim continues is fundamentally flawed, and those flaws were made worse by the way that Concentrix operated.
I come to the conclusion that there are certain tasks that the Government simply should not delegate to a private company or to anyone else, and the collection of taxes and the issuing of tax credits is one of them. I hope that this will be the last experiment in that vein. I want to pay my taxes to the Government; I do not want to pay taxes to some company that I do not understand. Equally, I want to receive tax credits therefrom.
In future, no policy that has a disproportionate impact on women, especially those struggling to bring up a family, should be tolerated by the Government. I hope that the Minister will say that when things like this are contemplated in the future, Ministers will consider which groups in society will be disproportionately affected by their policies, in order to ensure that they do not continue to target women in the way that, frankly, this Government have throughout their existence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
Order. As hon. Members can see, this is a very well subscribed debate. I intend to start the wind-ups shortly after 10.30 am, which means that from the outset I will impose a two-minute limit on all speeches.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Mr Nuttall, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Over the last few months, I have heard innumerable distressing accounts from people living in my constituency of Dundee about how the failures of this US multinational contractor are driving families immediately into poverty, driving them to food banks, driving them—in some cases—into losing their homes, and driving individuals from my constituency to make calls saying they feel suicidal because they feel they have nothing left to live for.
Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time that Government outsourcing has failed to meet expectations. In the past, we have seen that results-based contracts do not improve the quality of public services. I am sure that everyone in Westminster Hall today remembers Atos, whose shambolic and cruel tests were designed to strip away benefits from sick and disabled people. Under its contract, Concentrix is paid on a payment-by-results model when tax credit claims are cut; in other words, the more tax credit payments Concentrix puts a stop to, the more commission it pockets.
In July, the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that
“appropriate safeguards are needed to preserve justice for the claimant.”
So far, and as my constituents’ cases prove, that is clearly not being achieved. To add to that, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is continuing to cut jobs right across the UK, while at the same time privatising and outsourcing contracts. HMRC departments that are already understaffed have been left to pick up the pieces; they have spent months dealing with backlogs of claims and errors.
The contract with Concentrix has not been renewed, which is a step in the right direction. However, this Government need to go further. They should not only put an end to the Concentrix contract immediately but call time on awarding any public contracts on a payment-by-results basis. We all need to remember that those of us who have the privilege to be Members of this House are here to serve the public. In that spirit, we need to ensure that organisations that are allowed to act on our behalf demonstrate a similar commitment to service, dignity and respect, rather than to profit. Payment-by-results contracts should have no place in the delivery of such important services—
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Like many colleagues, I have seen a substantial spike in the number of tax credit inquiries following the letters from Concentrix. Our constituents expect action to be taken to ensure that benefits and tax credits are paid to the right people, and not to people who should not qualify for them. They also expect that process to be fair and sensitive. It is clear, however, that that has not been the case with Concentrix. So I am relieved—indeed, delighted—that the contract with Concentrix will not be renewed. However, we need to consider a number of questions, many of which were raised by the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), about whatever contract or system replaces the current Concentrix contract.
The first question is about the letters coming from Concentrix, including the form and style of those letters. In addition to letters that a number of my constituents have shown me, I have seen one of the letters that a member of my family received. Frankly, I would not have assumed that that letter came on behalf of the Government. It was of very poor quality; the letterhead looked as if it had been scanned in or computer-generated; and to all extents and purposes it looked like a scam, and I would have been very reluctant to responded officially to it.
We have spoken about the burden of proof and where it should lie. We also must consider the standard of proof. Concentrix has been treating the standard as beyond the realm of possibilities instead of on the balance of probabilities, and that is entirely inappropriate, particularly given what it calls the evidence. Data from credit searches and the like may be useful intelligence for starting further investigations, but they are not, in themselves, evidence. I am pleased that the contract is not being renewed, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.
Since 6 September—just six weeks ago—I have had 11 constituents bring their complaints to me. In one case, Concentrix did not believe a young woman because it saw money from someone with the same surname going into her account. It refused to believe that it was because she handled her mother’s bills. Just because she was helping out her ageing mother, that lady had to pawn her late father’s jewellery so that she could put food on the table for her family. Another constituent’s tax credits stopped after the Concentrix system incorrectly calculated that she had worked under the threshold; it even ignored a letter that she provided from her employer. As of today, she has been without payment for nearly four months.
It is degrading to not be believed and trusted, to be considered to be cheating the system, especially when evidence and sound reason to the contrary are given. When someone is working hard to make ends meet, it is deeply insulting and demoralising to have the floor unjustly ripped out from under them.
Fortunately, the message seems to be getting through, because Concentrix has, indeed, been given the boot, but the Government’s new approach, which has ended up with their having to hire hundreds of staff into the Revenue, will end up costing millions—talk about a false economy. That is the problem of a Government who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing; the presumption is of guilt, not innocence; the currency is suspicion, not trust, and those who need and are entitled to help are made to feel like cheats.
Theresa May claims that she wants to build a country that works for everyone, yet her Government consistently undermine some of the basic binds that are supposed to hold our country together. There is no excuse or reason for that. Let us hope that lessons are learned and that, from now on, systems are built to reduce insecurity in people’s lives rather than leaving them on the edge of survival.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on bringing the debate to the House. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been inundated with desperate calls from constituents who have had their tax credits cut. Although blame has been apportioned to Concentrix, the company was being forced to meet targets because the contract involved payment by results. I have seen constituents reduced to tears after being accused of misdemeanours in a very humiliating and degrading way in relation to their applications. On investigation, it was found that they were not at fault at all, so all their anxiety was unfair and totally unwarranted.
Let us be clear that the fault lies with HMRC, which set the targets and placed the policy and operational failure at the door of Concentrix. The failure lies with HMRC because over the years it has been peddling a cost-cutting exercise and closing offices. We have seen that in Northern Ireland. We have seen competent staff forced to centralise in other locations. HMRC has not been doing its job properly. It has been targeting the wrong individuals—the poor and the vulnerable. Will the Minister specify what will happen to the contract? Will it be outsourced again? Frankly, I believe that HMRC needs to row back and have a much more friendly, sympathetic and humanitarian attitude towards claimants, particularly those who have been reliant, in a very unnecessary way, on food banks.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. Right hon. and hon. Members have already highlighted numerous ways in which our constituents have been badly affected and I want to highlight just one more. Constituents are suffering ongoing problems, even when mistakes by Concentrix are acknowledged and credits are reinstated. Having built up big debts to friends or family members, or even to childcare providers who agreed to keep working on the expectation that debts would be settled on the resolution of the tax credit problems, my constituents are now being told that they will get their back payments over the course of a year. That does not really help, because the major debts are due now. Will the Minister explain why HMRC cannot make the back payments now? It is not fair on our constituents and it is not fair on those who have had to help out when the Government have failed in their duty.
I agree that this was a rotten contract from the outset, with a commercial organisation making decisions about a claimant’s past eligibility and getting payment by results. The contract even specified how many cases— 2 million, I think—were expected to be modified, even before a single piece of evidence was considered.
Back in July 2016, the independent Social Security Advisory Committee said that the payment model would:
“potentially create a conflict of interest”.
The only bit I can quibble with there is “potentially”. It was a clear conflict of interest. It becomes hard to square information from our constituents with what we are told about the performance of the contract. I read somewhere that only 120 cases had breached the contract terms, yet I think we have had almost 120 examples of awful cases in the debate so far, so either the systems for monitoring contract performance are not up to scratch, perhaps because they rely too much on the company the performance of which is being measured, or they are monitoring the wrong things entirely.
I hope that the Government will explain what more they will do to resolve the mess, because they are not doing enough yet. Once cases are brought back in-house, they should stay there. We should not repeat the same mistakes again.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on the excellent case she has put. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, in the past few months my office has dealt with dozens of cases every week of people who have found themselves in increasingly desperate situations as a result of Concentrix investigations, and I would like to make it clear that I welcome the decision not to renew the contract. I hope that it leads to the work coming back in-house.
Some of my constituents are victims of domestic abuse and have gone to refuges and then been rehoused. Although their support workers have told Concentrix of the change in their circumstances, it has not been logged. One constituent’s brother was accused of being her partner, and another constituent was accused of co-habiting with a former tenant. Many have been drawn to the discretionary assistance fund administered by the Welsh Government and to food banks. Yes, in the medium term we need scrutiny of how that has happened, of why it has not been monitored and of the payment by results model.
HMRC staff have been drafted in to help, but there are clearly not enough of them. All credit to them, but they have suffered huge cuts over the past few years. It clearly will not take 21 days to deal with some of the cases—I have heard that it will take up to six weeks. We need to clear the backlog now, because there is much distress out there and people have suffered. We need the Minister to give a clear steer about which cases are the priority. Yes, we urgently need to learn the lessons, but we also crucially need help now for those affected, with more staff to turn cases around.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We must acknowledge the number of people who have been hurt as a result of this debacle, but it is important to point out two things. First, the history of tax credits and the way in which people have been dealt with extends well beyond the current contract. During much of my political career, before the work was ever contracted out, I have had people come to me about their difficulties with tax credits and with HMRC. So it is not a new problem; this is a complicated benefit and the issues go back some time. The contract was made by HMRC. The referrals were given to Concentrix by HMRC. The guidance was given by HMRC and the company acted on it. If there is any fault to be attributed, it has to be shared with the people who issued the contract in the first place.
The second thing is that HMRC has treated the workers in Concentrix diabolically. They found out in the news that they were losing the contract and therefore their jobs. That is no way to treat workers, many of whom were dedicated and simply acting on the information and the guidelines given to them. They were trying to do their job to the best of their ability.
Whether this matter is contracted out or kept in-house—I have no difficulty with contracting out some services—problems will persist so long as the attitude, the wrong information and guidance and the bureaucratic rules of HMRC continue.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this debate. Like many other hon. Members, I have been appalled by the nature of the complaints that my office has received from worried constituents faced with extreme hardship following action by Concentrix to suspend their tax credits. I accept that some providers may want to conduct checks to ensure that money is being paid to the right people, but it is wholly unacceptable to stop money being paid to parents without evidence while checks are carried out. The action taken by Concentrix has caused extreme hardship for many of my constituents and people across the country. They use the money to provide food and essentials for their children and families, and to be without for a long period of time is unacceptable and has resulted in many families resorting to food banks and in some cases going without. That is utterly shameful.
Of the many cases brought to my office, one relates to a constituent who had her tax credits stopped because Concentrix believed she had an undeclared partner. Following much stress and my constituent providing extensive evidence that she did not have an undeclared partner, it transpired that the basis of the action by Concentrix was an out-of-date record of a previous tenant at her address.
While Concentrix has to bear its share of the responsibility for the hardship faced by many people in recent months, HMRC also has to bear its share for allowing things to get into this mess. Does the Minister accept responsibility for HMRC’s lack of scrutiny? What lessons will be learned before anyone else is engaged to do the work? I am particularly interested to know whether HMRC is considering retaining this work in-house rather than using the targeted payment-by-results model that has caused so much hardship and stress to so many in my constituency and across the country.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
We have all had cases of people who have been vindicated after their lives have been turned upside down. They may have had their payments reinstated and even sometimes their bank charges refunded, but what about the high-interest payments they have had to make to payday lenders? What about the jobs they have lost because their childcare provider cancelled due to lack of payment? Where is the justice in those situations?
In one case, a working mother of four in Midlothian lost her job because her childcare provider cancelled on her. She put out an appeal on social media to ask complete strangers to send her five-year-old son birthday cards so that he could have something of a birthday. She was so ashamed at not being able to provide her children with anything other than a basic ration pack from a food bank. How can that situation be justifiable? Members from all parties in the House have highlighted similar cases across the country featuring single parents. Those situations are not coincidental and they were preventable. The strategy has been utterly shameful.
One thing that is clear from the Concentrix experience is that it achieved nothing and created a mess that has damaged people financially and emotionally—a mess that has been and continues to be expensive to correct. Additional resource is being appointed within HMRC and the civil service and the suggested cost of the Concentrix contract is reputed to have been £75 million so it seems fair to end my contribution by asking how much of that money will be clawed back to directly compensate those affected most.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
As constituency MPs, we are all aware of the hardship and suffering caused by Concentrix. By definition, people receiving tax credits are on low incomes and are not able to cope with a sudden drop in that income. Concentrix’s “Shoot first, ask questions later” approach, in which recipients have been accused of living with people they have never heard of, it takes more than an hour for their calls to be answered, and it is suggested that they get by on payday loans while Concentrix sorts out its mistakes, caused anxiety, distress and extreme hardship. In many cases, we have had to make personal referrals to food banks, so that people can feed themselves and their children. We all have examples from our postbags and inboxes of shocking cases in which families have been left struggling to make ends meet.
By way of example, I want to put on record some of the highlights—perhaps I should say lowlights—of the many cases I have had to deal with in recent weeks, and show the pattern of incompetence that has been exposed. More than three quarters of the cases I have dealt with have been of people accused of living with the previous tenant at their address. In one case, a constituent found after asking their neighbours that the person they were suspected of living with was in prison.
It is worth pointing out that with a handful of exceptions, all the cases that have come to my attention have been raised by women, and two thirds are from single mothers. In nearly two thirds of the cases, constituents found their tax credits stopped without any prior warning. When they contacted Concentrix, they were told that letters had been sent to them weeks previously but not replied to, hence the stopped payments. The occasional letter going astray in the post is one thing, but Concentrix is apparently sending letters into some black hole, never to be seen again. Advice given over the phone has been inconsistent and often contradictory. My constituents have reported that, as have my staff.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I share Members’ frustrations about dealing with Concentrix in the constituency cases that come to us, but our frustration is nothing compared to the distress and desperation caused to many constituents. Let us be clear: as the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) indicated, we need to look closer to Parliament when asking some of our questions. The fact is that the contract was conceived by HMRC in a spirit of suspicion and hostility towards its customers. It said that it wanted to handle the high-risk renewal cases in this way, and it intimated to Concentrix that it was disappointed that Concentrix had screened out 80% of the cases referred to it as likely to be high risk and did not pursue them further. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why HMRC is taking the contract back. It perhaps feels that it could make a hotter and heavier pursuit than even Concentrix could.
The right hon. Lady also touched on the significant spike in August, when even more calls to Concentrix were waiting and even more call queues could not be dealt with. That came from HMRC’s direct move to remove 45,000 people from tax credits. Some of those people were supposedly under investigation by Concentrix as high-risk renewals, but HMRC moved against them because of the annual declaration process. We have two separate processes going on, and the one thing in common is the victim: the claimant. Did Ministers know that HMRC was striking off people when they were going through the high-risk renewal claim?
The other issue I want the Minister to address is the law. The right hon. Lady raised the question of the burden of proof, but Concentrix insists that HMRC is saying that the 30-day cut-off on non-compliance is absolute and in statute. Do we need to change that law?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
For too long, Concentrix left families in vulnerable situations, wondering where their next meal would come from or how they would make their next rent payment. I have heard from multiple Tooting residents—all of whom are single mothers—of the stress that Concentrix caused them by stopping their tax credits via false claims that they had a partner living in their property. My constituents found those claims so difficult to disprove, and subsequently struggled to make ends meet for many months on end.
One constituent came to me in early August. She is a single mother of a 14-year-old girl, and her tax credits were stopped by Concentrix due to her supposedly having a partner living with her—a partner who did not exist. She was left with £4 in her bank account to last her 16 days. As if that was not bad enough, two days later she was informed by the council that her housing benefit was being stopped due to her supposed change of circumstances. That left her unable to afford her rent and reliant on food banks. As if that was not bad enough, HMRC then demanded almost £4,000 in back payments for this change of situation. Some may say she was lucky: it took only one month for HMRC to overturn the termination of her tax credit and housing benefit. As we have heard, many others across the UK have had to spend many more months waiting for that result. However, I would say she is not lucky. No mother, father or carer should ever be left with £4 in their bank account and no knowledge of when they may be able to put food on the table again.
People deserve not only answers from Concentrix, but to know from our Government that such situations will not happen again. We have a duty; we need to reassure those who put their trust in us that we will not allow this to happen to any other family. We have a duty to protect our citizens, and that protection comes in many forms. With respect to Concentrix, we have failed in our commitment. Will the Minister today reassure us that this will not happen again?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Like other Members in the Chamber, I am all too aware of the significant number of people caused great hardship by the withdrawal of tax credit payments. Many of them are in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. Some of my constituents have had payments stopped because the claimant has been incorrectly accused of sharing a home with a non-existent partner. Tax credits have been suddenly and unexpectedly withdrawn, with the claimant even having difficulty in securing any kind of explanation, however misguided and mistaken that explanation turns out to be. Claimants are on the phone for hours over weeks and weeks, and are caught up in a grotesque bureaucratic nightmare. The system seems to mock their hardship, leaving them to rely on food banks.
There can be no doubt that the system is a mess. Concentrix’s indiscriminate and groundless accusations of fraud directed at low and middle-income families is completely unacceptable, and cause huge emotional distress, financial hardship and utter despair. Now we know from reports that Concentrix’s misconduct could be in breach of the Data Protection Act, since claimants’ details have been known to have been sent to the wrong address. The allegations are extremely serious and must be fully investigated by both Concentrix and HMRC. Outstanding cases must be dealt with urgently. Only then will the hardship caused end. I urge the Minister to indicate how and by when that will happen. Concentrix’s contract expires in May 2017, but the suffering continues right now. Urgent action is needed to protect claimants from this appalling situation.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I, too, have been inundated with calls from desperate constituents who have had their tax credits stopped owing to accusations that they are living with another person. So far, every single one of the cases investigated has been proved false. The undue stress and pressure placed on parents is beyond belief, and the Government must take responsibility. I thank the few Government Members who have turned up to listen to the debate.
One woman had food in her freezer to feed her child, but the money on her electricity meter ran out, and the food defrosted and had to be thrown away. Another said that she was not bothered about feeding herself, but it broke her heart to see her children go hungry. People have been seriously let down by the failings of Concentrix, a company appointed by and acting under the watch of this Government. All the people affected deserve answers as to how and why such a situation was allowed to happen.
We are starting to see a slow trickle of reinstated payments, but in some cases the back pay has not been paid, the bills that were building up are turning into court summonses, and debts are growing. Unfortunately, people are having to turn to payday loans and loan sharks. The dilemma my constituents face is whether they ask for another mandatory reconsideration to investigate the missing back pay and risk having their payments stopped again. I simply cannot express my feelings of anger towards those responsible for this monumental failure and for the damage done to thousands of needy families across the country. It is not good enough simply to say that the contract will not be renewed. We need an urgent investigation into how this happened in the first place. Furthermore, we need to know that all the cases still open will be resolved urgently, and we need complete assurance that this will never be allowed to happen again.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Julie Molyneux, a constituent of mine, was accused of working for only 15 hours, when she had worked 16.5. She phoned HMRC and was told to phone Concentrix. She phoned Concentrix and was told to phone HMRC. She went round and round in circles. Her tax credits were stopped for eight weeks and she was forced to live on £63 a week, with two children to look after, one of whom is disabled. It was acknowledged that a mistake was made, but it has still not been put right.
Hayley Jones was accused of living with a previous tenant. She tried to get through to the system for a week without any luck. She finally got through, but was put on hold for an hour and a half. When she told them she had sent in all the relevant documents, they denied receiving them. She was left without money for eight weeks. She had no money at all and four children to support.
Paula Bee was informed—this was new to her—that she was living with an ex-partner, when he was living somewhere else. She had to try to track him down so she could supply a copy of his rent agreement. What did not get paid as a result of that? People have been unable to get through to the telephone helpline. When constituents do get through, they are placed on hold for more than an hour, in the worst case. Operators are rude to them when they are trying to resolve problems. Single women are told that they are living with other people, and it always turns out to be previous tenants. Concentrix says it has not received forms. It says people should ring HMRC, and HMRC says they should ring Concentrix. Nobody responds to letters for a very long time.
This situation has to stop. It has to be put right. My constituents who have been affected must have it put right now.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this debate, and I congratulate all the Members here who have demonstrated real compassion and understanding on this matter. The Minister might not have been on the other side of phone calls from constituents, but it is worth making the point that people who phone our constituency offices are at desperation point—at their wits’ end. Indeed, our constituency office staff are finding it extremely difficult to deal with people in dire need of help. I hope the Minister will take that into account when considering my further points.
We have all faced a number of these cases. On 14 September, I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what the turnaround time would be for dealing with cases, and I was told four working days. On 29 September, in a phone conversation with HMRC, we were told it would be two to three weeks before cases were looked at. On 4 October, I was told the four-day period had been dispensed with. That is not good enough. I have a constituent who set up a food bank, but who is now a customer of that food bank. I know of a mother who cannot afford childcare and had to resign from her job, a mother who cannot afford lunch money to send her children to school with, and a mother who had to sign herself out of hospital after a suspected heart attack to deal with the issue. These are really serious matters, so I have a list of suggestions that the Minister might take on board so that these people can achieve justice immediately.
HMRC should provide a free phone line for people to use. It is ridiculous that people spend between 8p and 10p a minute to speak to HMRC and hold on for hours. On hardship payments, I understand that HMRC will call people, but they get two call-back chances. If HMRC does not get someone in those two phone calls, they will not get the hardship payment. When people have a small sum of money, and have to decide whether to feed the children, or top up or reconnect the phone, what do people do? They do what we expect them to do: they feed their children. Such situations must come to an end.
The call-back service that is provided should be there for people to use. People could leave a voicemail or press a button in order to get a guaranteed call back from HMRC. Our constituents should not be chasing HMRC for money that is rightfully theirs. It is not their error.
On the posting of documents, HMRC should distribute postage-paid envelopes to our constituents, so that they bear no cost when sending documents back to HMRC to have cases processed. On the contract that has been cancelled, of course that is welcome, but I want to look further into that contract. Did it reach its natural conclusion? Did the Government simply decide not to renew? What compensation is available to our constituents for the situation in which they find themselves as a result of a contract that has not served the Government well?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
My understanding is that the maximum compensation is £100, which is a paltry amount when people have been plunged into debt and uncertainty.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I agree. On the £100 payment, there is a lot of haziness around it. Some of my constituents have not taken up the payment because there is no clarity around whether it is repayable or not. Again, that has to be dealt with. As I have said, if someone does not receive the phone call offering them £100, they do not get it, so if someone does not have a phone because they choose food over contact with HMRC, they do not get anything.
We do not have much time and I want to give time to the Minister to answer these important questions. Apart from the suggestions that I made on what HMRC should immediately do, these are my key questions for the Treasury: what is the latest guidance given by HMRC bosses to call handlers on how long a person can wait for the tax credit payments to be restarted? How many cases have been resolved, and how many are outstanding? On the impact on victims, what estimate have the Government made of the average cost to each customer in lost payments? What assistance is there to help claimants meet the costs of requesting a mandatory reconsideration?
What are the criteria for offering emergency interim payments? Are all victims eligible, or only those whose cases have been highlighted through the MP hotline? Why has the existence of those payments not been publicised? It is not in the wider public domain. How many victims satisfy the criteria, and how many have been offered the payment?
Why did the contract between HMRC and Concentrix incentivise the company to cancel tax credit payments? What a disgrace! Of course that is a conflict of interest, as suggested by the independent Social Security Advisory Committee in July. Why was the contract so badly managed? Will the work be brought back in-house following the end of the contract, or will a new external contractor be sought? Please will a Minister do the right thing by our constituents and give them the money that they need, and rightfully deserve?
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Nuttall. I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for enabling Members to consider this matter, as well as hon. Members from across the House who have attended and spoken. I counted 24 interventions or speeches, and there was a theme in the words that were used time and again—words such as “shameful”, “shocking”, “distressing”, “desperation”, “anger” and “despair”.
Like other hon. Members, I have received many letters and phone calls from constituents who, to their shock and bewilderment, have found their child tax credits stopped, with little explanation and with few avenues of recourse. Under the Government’s contract with Concentrix, thousands of innocent mothers—the vast majority are working mothers—were in effect branded fraudsters and cheats. At the drop of a hat, they saw money that they desperately needed for their children taken away, notwithstanding their entitlement to it. Yet the company is not solely at fault—the Government are, too. Despite the protestations that the Minister will no doubt make today, the Government gave Concentrix a contract that was a licence to harass and was open to abuse. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to work out that if a company is paid commission to find tax credit error and fraud, it will start with the easy targets so as to turn an even easier profit.
What is more shocking is that the victims, which is what they are, did not have the means of fighting back. They were disfranchised. Hon. Members have spoken of their need to intervene personally in many cases to get movement. The whole process was deeply flawed and, as has been suggested, operated on the presumption that people were guilty until proven innocent—a concept completely alien and contradictory to our values, and our sense of justice, fairness and decency.
Under the system, the occupant of a household was sent a letter by Concentrix accusing them of not meeting the standards for child tax credit. The letter demanded that they get in touch to present evidence of their living arrangements. Having received the letter, some constituents attempted to call Concentrix, only to find the number busy, a point that has also been made. When Concentrix did not hear back from the person, who may not have received the letter in the first place, another letter was summarily sent, stopping tax credit payments. As far as I am aware, at no point was a Government Minister consulted or asked to sign off the process—can the Minister tell us otherwise? Instead, a private foreign company, whose sole interest was profit, was allowed to withdraw tax credits on behalf of the British Government. That is what makes the contract so unique: the vast power Concentrix had to act on putative information.
Jon Thompson, the chief executive of HMRC, confirms that in this novel approach, it was the first time such checks had been carried out by an external provider. Even Atos did not have the power to withdraw benefits. Concentrix had carte blanche. The Government were in fact planning to renew the contract for a job well done. They did not care to ask why Concentrix had so many savings on its books, or to listen to the complaints of many of our constituents. It was the Labour party that originally called the National Audit Office to investigate and the Labour party that has pushed for oversight and demanded action for the thousands of families who have still not received repayments from Concentrix.
We see the austerity cuts hitting women hardest, and the Government changing women’s pension age. Now we see the Government contracting private companies to take away money from single working mothers. We cannot help but ask what this Government have against women. What do they have against hard-working single mothers? It comes down to a lack of care. In essence, the Government are happy to outsource important processes affecting people’s lives to private corporations to make a profit. So be it, but not without the proper checks and balances being in place.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
The hon. Gentleman has focused on the failures of Concentrix. Although many of us will accept some of his points, does he also accept that the main focus of the difficulties is HMRC and how it managed the contract?
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that needs to be looked at.
When all is said and done, this is a question of the performance management of a Government contractor, and a clear lack of oversight by the Government. On behalf of the many people affected by the debacle, I would like to performance-manage the Minister by asking the following questions. First, who was overseeing Concentrix’s contract? Secondly, how was the oversight conducted? Thirdly, how often was it reviewed? Fourthly, what were the penalties for mismanagement of the contract? Fifthly, when did the penalties kick in? Sixthly, what penalties are left on the contract? Seventhly, will Concentrix be paying back any money to the Government? Eighthly, how many people have been affected? Ninthly, what actions have the Government taken proactively to compensate those people? Tenthly, have the Government sent out formal apologies to those affected? And finally, when will the last person who has had their child tax credit withdrawn receive repayment? Those key questions need to be answered and acted on. We do not want any shilly-shallying from the Government.
Melanie Onn
Would my hon. Friend add two further questions: whether Concentrix has applied for any more contracts in the last month, and whether it will be prevented from bidding for any future contracts with this Government?
Peter Dowd
Those are important questions, which I am sure the Minister will pick up on in his response. I fear that unless the Government get to grips with their commissioning processes, we will be back here in six or 12 months’ time, looking at another company that has abused a Government contract for profit and, in so doing, deprived some of the most vulnerable people of much-needed financial support. The situation needs to be sorted; otherwise, I fear the fiasco will be repeated and the Minister will be doing an encore in due course.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the Minister to leave, if possible, a couple of minutes at the end of his speech so that the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has time to wind up the debate.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Nuttall, in my first debate in Westminster Hall. I give the Financial Secretary’s apologies: she is on a Bill Committee and cannot be in two places at once. I have listened carefully to what has been a very interesting debate and will do my best to answer all the questions.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate and take this opportunity to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their efforts, not just in the debate but during the past few weeks, supporting constituents and bringing to our attention the difficulties that constituents are experiencing with their claims for tax credits. I reassure hon. Members that we are making every effort possible to resolve those difficulties as soon as possible and to make sure that the support provided through tax credits reaches those who really need it. There is no doubt that last month we were falling short in the level of customer service that we were providing to claimants, and I am very sorry about that.
In our efforts to tackle error and fraud in tax credits, we had engaged Concentrix to investigate claims and it did help us to drive down error and fraud to almost the lowest level since tax credits began. However, faced with a high volume of calls, Concentrix struggled to provide the kind of service that people had a right to expect—indeed, the kind of service stipulated in its contract. That led to a stressful time for a lot of people, including some of the most vulnerable, as they struggled to reach Concentrix to resolve any queries about their entitlement to tax credits. Let me be clear that that was not good enough, which is why we stepped in to get things back on track.
Ms Angela Eagle
Where did the information, particularly on cohabitation, come from? So many of our constituents have been accused of cohabiting with the previous tenant of their usually rented property. Were the data HMRC-matched or did Concentrix do it all on its own?
Simon Kirby
I am going to reach that point later. Very briefly, HMRC provided third-party data to Concentrix, which then chose who to pursue from those data.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
We have heard today of constituents who have lost employment, college courses and access to childcare, and have been forced to go to food banks and take out payday loans, which inflicts stress and trauma not only on the parents but on the children. Having admitted that it was the responsibility of HMRC as well as Concentrix, will the Minister commit to expanding the compensation available to reflect the hardship and trauma inflicted on those people?
Simon Kirby
I will make some progress, and if the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he may well hear some things that are helpful to that question. Before I turn to those points, let me outline what we are doing.
First, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced in the House last month, HMRC is not passing any new cases to Concentrix. We have been very clear that the contract will not be renewed beyond the end date of May 2017. Secondly, staff at HMRC are, as we speak, making every effort to resolve all open cases to ensure people get the payments they need and deserve. HMRC took back 181,000 outstanding cases from Concentrix and it has already dealt with more than 149,000—82%—of them. I would like to reassure everyone whose case remains open that we are making every effort to complete those cases within the next couple of weeks. It really is a priority.
Simon Kirby
I will not give way.
Thirdly, anyone who does not agree with Concentrix’s decision has a right to ask for a review called a mandatory reconsideration. HMRC has allocated its own staff to carry out such reviews within 21 days of the request. It is a large organisation with flexible staffing, so it is able to deal with peaks and troughs of demand. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the issue of extra costs, but I am confident that there will not be any.
Patricia Gibson
Given the extra work being created for HMRC to clean up the mess created by Concentrix, does the Minister have any view on the fact that one third of HMRC staff will be cut by 2021?
Simon Kirby
As I said, HMRC has a large number of staff, who are flexible and deal with the peaks and troughs of demand. If HMRC, after receiving the relevant information and reviewing the case, finds that the claimant is entitled to tax credits, they can expect to see that money in their bank accounts within four working days.
Lastly, we are working with hon. Members to help their constituents who are struggling to resolve any issues. We have extended opening hours and have put extra advisers on the tax credits hotline for MPs, which is now handling about 200 calls a day. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, following last month’s drop-in session, will be holding another session tomorrow in the House of Commons Library.
Angela Crawley
The news that HMRC will not renew the contract with Concentrix is welcome. Those responsible for these reprehensible practices should be held to account. When these services are brought back in-house, we must ensure that the blanket, baseless accusations and sanctions that have been applied will stop and that compensation will be made for the Government’s mistake. Will the Minister take the opportunity to apologise to my constituents and the women and men up and down the country who have experienced the Government’s failure?
Simon Kirby
None of us in this Chamber wants anyone not to receive money that they are entitled to, especially if they are parents with young, vulnerable children. It is up to all of us to help our constituents and ensure we once again provide a fast and efficient service to everyone.
Let me turn to some of the issues that were raised. I do not have a lot of time, so hon. Members will have to bear with me. I acknowledge the points made by many hon. Members about the contract. HMRC will be undertaking a lessons-learned exercise, and it will share those lessons across the Government. It is clear that they will help to inform other contracts in the future.
Mark Durkan
In that lessons-learned exercise, will HMRC look at the question of the so-called high-risk renewal scheme, which is at the very heart of all the troubles that our constituents have suffered?
Simon Kirby
There will be a number of reviews, and all lessons learned will be looked at in an open-minded manner. We will consider all elements of what has gone wrong and try to ensure that the mistakes, which have clearly happened, are not repeated.
I have talked about how the data are given to Concentrix. It is up to Concentrix to choose who to contact from those data. The £100 hardship payment is important. It is available to everyone, not just through the MPs’ hotline. It is not necessarily a one-off payment; future payments can be made if there is a delay in the decision. I encourage people in hardship to apply for it, because it is there to help people while we sort out this mess.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about the 30-day cut-off period. I can tell him that most customers have been able to provide the information required within 30 days. There was a question about money being clawed back from Concentrix. Concentrix is not paid for wrong decisions, and payment is reduced where it fails to meet performance standards. That is still happening. At the end of the day, it is paid to do a job, and if it does not do the job, it is not paid for it. I have noted the comments about letters being lost.
In conclusion, I thank everyone here. This has been a short debate, and it would have been nice to have more time for contributions. I am here to listen, and I have listened very carefully.
Fiona Mactaggart
I thank the Minister for that response. This is probably my first experience of leading a debate in which everybody apart from the Minister has agreed with one another. I thank all hon. Members who contributed.
I am particularly concerned about the Minister’s account—I know he is not the Minister responsible, but I hope he will pass this on to the Financial Secretary—which implies that this is just a recent phenomenon, because it is not. It has existed for a long time; it is not just a recent failure. I also do not accept that Concentrix should be wholly blamed. I note that the Minister said it is up to Concentrix to choose which information to use. I would like him to write to me after this debate to tell me whether it is true that HMRC pressed Concentrix to use data on cases in which it was not even able to name the claimed partner. That shows that HMRC is responsible for this oppression of women. The Minister did not note in his response the concern expressed by many Members that this is a gendered policy—
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Earlier Cancer Diagnosis: NHS Finances
(8 years, 1 month 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 John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered earlier cancer diagnosis and NHS finances.
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing this debate and you, Mr Nuttall, for presiding over it. I also take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new post. He has been in it a while now, but this might be his first Westminster Hall debate. We look forward to working with him—he comes highly recommended—and I thank him for accepting the invitation, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health, who was unable to make the appointment, to speak at our Britain Against Cancer conference in December.
Early diagnosis has been a key theme of the all-party group on cancer for some time. We call it the “magic key” to cancer. If we can drive forward on our rates of early diagnosis, the stage at which we first detect cancer, we can improve survival rates significantly.
I should perhaps briefly explain to the Minister that there is a little history to this involvement. Back in 2009, the all-party group published the report of an inquiry it had conducted into cancer inequalities. We found that patients in the NHS at the one-year point since their cancers were detected stand as much chance of surviving to the five-year point as they would in any other healthcare system. Where we let ourselves down, however, is getting patients to the one-year point. That suggests that the NHS is as good as any other healthcare provider in treating cancers once detected, but poor at detecting them in the first place.
In this country, our survival rates have been ticking up, with the rate of improvement broadly similar to that in other countries, but our survival rates still stand well below those of many other countries. For example, in this country the overall one-year survival rate is about 70% or 71%, but in Sweden it is 82%. That might not sound like a big difference, but overlay that differential with regard to the population of the UK as a whole and it tells us that tens of thousands of lives a year are needlessly being lost because we are diagnosing too late.
We need to focus on early diagnosis, and the Minister is in a unique position to be able to make a real difference to a large number of people if we can get it right. Yes, cancer survival rates are improving, but they are improving around the world and we are still well behind international averages. We welcome the improvements, but we have still not yet seen that kick-up that will allow us to catch up with those international averages.
Our 2009 report came up with, in essence, one recommendation. Reports can always come up with myriad recommendations, but we believe in short reports and, having consulted with the wider cancer community, the good and the great of the cancer world, the charities, patients and so forth, we came up with one recommendation: to ensure that we focus the local NHS, the clinical commissioning groups— primary care trusts then, CCGs now—on their one-year survival rates.
The logic is simple: the earlier we diagnose, the better our one-year survival rates. They are therefore a good measure of how successful we are in diagnosing early. Late diagnosis makes for poor one-year figures, so we get the CCGs to focus on the one-year figure and, if there is a line of accountability there, they will be encouraged to focus on how to improve earlier diagnosis and introduce initiatives promoting earlier diagnosis.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend seen the results of the Barts Health NHS Foundation Trust’s 2013 study at Whipps Cross hospital? It showed the effectiveness of complementary therapies in improving symptom control following diagnosis. The three-year study revealed that 90% of people noticed that side-effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy decreased following such treatment, and patients said that their pain, sleep and emotional health improved. Should we make greater use of those supportive therapies as part of the scheme of things?
Mr Baron
We certainly have to be inclusive with regards to how we look at treatment generally. As my hon. Friend knows, the all-party group and, indeed, the wider cancer community are looking at such things. He comes to our meetings, and we listen carefully. Questions certainly need to be answered on that front, so he is pushing at an open door. We have an open mind, and we are listening.
Together with the wider cancer community—at the end of the day it has been a team approach—we have been successful in ensuring that CCGs are now held accountable. The one-year survival rates have been included in the delivery dashboard of the assurance framework, and that is very good news. Figures have only been published for the past one or two years, so we are still seeing what is happening with regards to improvements and how CCGs are performing, but at least we have made a start and there is an element of accountability.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I must of course declare that I am a dentist and so have considerable professional interest in the subject, although it is rare that I am in the surgery. I am also chair of the all-party group on skin, and one might think that diagnosing skin cancer is fairly obvious, in particular given that skin problems are a major concern of GPs. However, one of the things we soon discovered was that undergraduate tuition time on skin conditions is extremely short—often a week or two weeks, which are frequently used by undergraduates, as I understand it, as an opportunity to go away, rather than to attend. If the education of GPs and doctors was better and reinforced by continuing professional development, we might get better results on skin cancer.
Mr Baron
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
We have been successful in getting the one-year figures into the DNA of the NHS, but there is no point having the tools in the toolkit if we do not use them, and one thing we are looking carefully at is the lines of accountability. We acknowledge that we are pushing at an open door—the Government have kindly accepted the need for the one-year figures—but there is still a very long way to travel. The latest Ofsted-style ratings have maintained the focus on survival rates, and yet those ratings still found that eight out of 10 CCGs must improve. That shows the scale of the challenge and the extent to which we need to raise our game.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If I could cast the hon. Gentleman’s mind back to the previous intervention, the Be Clear on Cancer campaign identified about 700 more patients with lung cancer, which led to about 300 more patients receiving life-saving surgery. That shows that publicity campaigns work. Does he agree that the Government need to encourage the NHS to have more publicity campaigns to identify the issues and save more lives?
Mr Baron
I agree completely. Briefly, the initiatives that could be introduced to promote earlier diagnosis are greater awareness campaigns, better diagnostics at primary care level, better uptake of screening in screening programmes, and better GP awareness—although this is not only about GPs. A whole host of initiatives could be introduced at the primary care level to improve survival rates and awareness generally. So yes, I completely and utterly agree.
Given the limited time available, I will make a little progress on the central point of this debate. We are pushing at an open door, which is fine; we are keeping a watching brief as a cancer community; and, as I have said, the Ofsted-style ratings have shown, among other things, that a big improvement is required. The all-party group on cancer will hold its annual parliamentary reception next summer—the Minister no doubt will be invited to that—at which we will focus on those CCGs that have most improved their one-year survival rates. The Britain Against Cancer conference, which we believe is the largest gathering of the cancer community in this country, will take place at the end of this year and will also focus on that issue.
We are therefore not walking away from the issue of survival rates, but we are saying as part of our watching brief that we wish to bring to the Government’s attention the fact that when it comes to cancer treatment, earlier diagnosis can not only help patients—diagnosing cancers earlier makes for better survival rates—but save a lot of money. The later cancer is diagnosed, the more aggressive the treatments and the higher the cost. That cost is quite significant, and the cost savings from earlier diagnosis could be ploughed back into treatment for patients. At a time when the NHS is under financial pressure, we suggest that too little attention is being paid to those potential cost savings. Too little work has been done by the NHS and too few health economists are looking at how reducing costs to such an extent would benefit both the taxpayer and, most importantly, patients.
Given the NHS’s lack of focus on that area, we have had to go to outside sources to give us some sort of measure of the potential cost savings. A September 2014 report by Incisive Health and Cancer Research UK showed quite a disparity between the cost of treating patients with early stage, or stage 1, cancer and those with late stage, or stages 3 and 4, cancer. For example, the cost per patient per year of treating colon cancer is £3,300 at stage 1 and £12,500 at stage 4—a near fourfold increase. Treating stage 1 rectal cancer costs £4,400; that goes up to nearly £12,000 if it is treated at a late stage. Treating ovarian cancer costs just over £5,000 per patient per year at an early stage, but £15,000 at a late stage. That report focused on four cancers: colon, rectal, lung and ovarian. They amount to only around a fifth of all cancers diagnosed, but if such cost savings were replicated across all cancers, we could be talking about savings of hundreds of millions of pounds, and that is before we even consider the number of patients who would benefit from earlier diagnosis, which Incisive Health cites as something like 52,000.
Mr Baron
I ask for a bit of patience. Let me make a little progress, and if there is time, I will take further interventions.
That report also showed variation between the highest and lowest-performing CCGs in the proportion of patients diagnosed early. That is also important. In colorectal cancer the variation was threefold, in lung cancer it was fourfold and in ovarian cancer it was fivefold. It is clear that if we could ensure that all CCGs achieved the best rate of early diagnosis—the rate achieved by the top performing CCG—significant cost savings could be made.
Those are interesting figures. Many believe them to be conservative—with a small “c”—in the sense that we often forget the costs of treatment later on down the care pathway beyond diagnosis, but we are certainly talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. One could argue that that is a drop in the ocean when we are looking at the NHS budget, but patients—cancer patients in particular—could certainly benefit from a couple of hundred million pounds. In an age when it is all too easy for politicians to talk about spending more money, we are trying to focus on potential cost savings from encouraging earlier diagnosis. As prevalence rises—Macmillan Cancer Support believes there may be another half a million cancer patients in the next five years, in addition to the around 2.5 million we have at the moment—so will costs, so the need for such savings will grow in importance.
The most recent report of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer followed an oral evidence session with the then cancer Minister and key decision makers in NHS England, as well as written evidence from more than 30 cancer-related organisations. That report concluded that where the new initiatives outlined in the cancer strategy could save costs, those initiatives required more focus and attention. It is our opinion that there needs to be greater appreciation in NHS England and the Department of Health of the savings that earlier diagnosis offers. As I have said, there are too few health economists working in the NHS, and even fewer looking at this area.
As the Minister is well aware, when I raised that issue at Health questions last week, he correctly referred to some ongoing studies, including the three-year research project being undertaken by Macmillan Cancer Support in a related area. He also mentioned Public Health England, which is looking at cost-effective initiatives for colorectal cancers. Those studies are welcome, but I maintain that the approach is piecemeal. We need a root and branch approach to look more specifically at this area. We need to promote earlier diagnosis at CCG and health and wellbeing board level. We have the one-year figures. We must not allow this to become a tick-box exercise; the issue is far too important for that. There needs to be greater focus on how underperforming CCGs will be held to account for their rate of improvement.
The all-party parliamentary group on cancer will play its full part in that work. We are looking at other areas. We have achieved our goal of getting the one-year figures into the DNA of the NHS, and we certainly will not walk away. We are focused on several areas, including patient experience and rarer cancers. There cannot be a meaningful improvement in the one-year figures if rarer cancers are not included, as those account for more than half the cancers that are diagnosed. We will play our full part, which includes the annual reception and the Britain Against Cancer conference, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s responses to the questions I have raised. What more does he believe the NHS can do to promote and focus on cost savings from earlier diagnosis? On behalf of the wider cancer community, and certainly the all-party parliamentary groups, including the cancer-specific groups represented by several hon. Members in the Chamber, may I request a meeting with the Minister to discuss this and other related cancer issues?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, in my second Westminster Hall debate since I became a Minister. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate and raising the valid points that he did and on his stewardship of the APPG on cancer, which is highly effective and has provided a large part of the briefings that I have received since becoming a Minister. I very much hope that he will carry on that work, and I am sure that he will.
My hon. Friend mentioned several times the phrase “pushing at an open door,” and I reassure him that the door is open. We have discussed this issue twice in fairly formal circumstances, and I am keen to take him up on his offer of meeting him and colleagues to discuss it further and make progress over and above what we can do in Westminster Hall debates and oral questions. I also look forward to speaking at the event in December.
I will talk, as Ministers do, about the progress that we are making in this area across England, but my hon. Friend reminded us that we are not best in class or among the best in Europe, and he is absolutely right. He gave us the statistics for Sweden, where the one-year survival rate is 82% versus our 71%. That is a target; it is where we need to get to. As we have made progress, we have got to where the best in Europe were several years ago. We need to keep progressing in that respect.
My hon. Friend rightly talked about CCG accountability, and I will talk a little about that. I want to emphasise the power of what was done last month, when we published the four indicators for every CCG in the country. That is a massive commitment to transparency. We were quite open that many CCGs needed to improve. My hon. Friend mentioned the figure of, I think, 80%, which we agree with. It is worth analysing the data and spending a bit of time looking at that, because small differences in percentages against the indicators, one of which is one-year survival, make a big difference to how a CCG is perceived. Accountability comes from transparency, and we have made big steps in that regard, last month in particular.
I want to thank the Members who intervened in the debate. As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) reminded us of the role that complementary remedies can play as part of an overall solution. There is no impediment to that in the NHS—CCGs can commission what they wish to commission. He mentioned the Barts study. My view is that it needs to be clear that commissioning is science driven, repeatable and all that goes with that, but there is no impediment if CCGs wish to commission complementary therapies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), in his capacity as chair of the all-party group on skin, told us how weak some of the training in that area may be at undergraduate level. I was not aware of that, so I will take it up and come back to him. It does not sound acceptable if the skin cancer diagnosis part of the syllabus is the bit that people leave.
Sir Paul Beresford
If I could emphasise that a little more, we have a distinct shortage of consultant dermatologists. They are backed up by GPs with a special interest, but a large number of referrals to dermatologists are made due to fear on the part of both the patient and the doctor that they will miss a melanoma or a squamous cell carcinoma when the doctor should be able to diagnose them. Many are dealt with in the early stage with cryosurgery, which is a very effective, quick treatment that I know, having been on the wrong end of it quite often, can be undertaken by a GP who has had the right education.
David Mowat
I thank my hon. Friend for that and for reminding us that at the core of the debate is a point we all agree on: early diagnosis is the key, whether it is for cost-saving purposes—I will come on to some of the points my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay made on that—or to be cost-effective. There is no question that early diagnosis saves lives and that it is the right thing to do. Whether we argue a bit about precisely how much money is saved is in a way a secondary issue; it saves lives and it is the right thing to do.
I also want to acknowledge the intervention of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who reminded us about the need for public health and GP awareness. In England we have had a significant increase in the number of referrals and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—latterly in England—has changed its guidelines for referral, which, together with the awareness issue, has increased significantly the number of people diagnosed in stages 1 and 2. We need to continue to make progress on that.
Mark Durkan
I commend the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for leading the debate and for the leadership he has provided on one-year survival rates through the APPG. Does the Minister accept the basic premise that value of life and value for money are not in competition? They are perfectly compatible. We can have better use of money with better outcomes because of better-timed treatments, and that also means there is better evaluation and research, which will feed into better education in a virtuous circle, to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford).
David Mowat
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and completely agree with the point he made. In this instance, there is no competition between saving money, saving lives and doing the right thing. In a sense, there is a secondary question as to just how much cost is saved, and the balance of cost saving versus doing more diagnostically, because in order to save lives, which is a highly cost-effective thing to do and the right thing to do, we need to do more on early diagnosis.
I have not yet got to the start of my remarks and I have a lot of pages to get through, so I will not be giving too much detail. It is worth acknowledging that cancer survival rates are increasing in the UK. In terms of improvement, between 2011 and 2015 we think something like 12,000 lives a year were saved. That exceeds the goals we set out in the cancer outcomes strategy in 2011.
Last year we saw a 91% increase in urgent GP referrals of patients with suspected cancer—that is another 822,000 patients. That shows a massive increase in NHS resources and all that goes with that, and we are beginning to see those early referrals, and the different guidelines GPs are using to refer, start to come through in the one-year survival statistics. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay reminded us, that does not mean that we are the best in Europe. We need to continue the drive to improve.
The cancer strategy produced by the cancer taskforce is the backbone of what we are trying to achieve. The—I think it is fair to say—acclaimed strategy it produced, “Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes”, was published last year. It had 96 recommendations in it, and the Government accepted all 96. We are now putting in place an implementation taskforce. We believe that if we are able to make the progress we expect by 2020, a further 30,000 lives a year can be saved.
Recommendation 96 is the one we are talking about today. It essentially says that we need to do a lot more on early diagnosis because of the cost savings that will potentially arise from that. There are differing views in the Department of Health as to whether for all cancer types in all instances earlier diagnosis does save costs because of the increase in cost and effort associated with the diagnosis—the early screening and all that goes with that. That was not addressed overtly in Cancer Research UK’s “Saving lives, averting costs” report, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend. He quoted numbers of several millions of pounds, and there is no doubt that stage 4 cancer costs massively more to treat than stage 1 cancer, but whether or not there are clear cost savings in all instances and even if we dispute the detail of some of those numbers, we go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that early diagnosis is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend also mentioned that there are not enough health economists in the NHS; the truth is there are not enough of lots of things in the NHS. Early diagnosis is certainly cost-effective in terms of lives saved, even if there may be some dispute as to whether it saves costs in all instances.
My hon. Friend mentioned the work being done by Macmillan, which I acknowledge. It is a three-year study, which we are looking forward to.
Mr Baron
I am conscious that I am eating into the few minutes the Minister has left, but the point about cost savings links to the point made earlier about initiatives and processes for earlier diagnosis. I urge him to think carefully about this, as I know he is doing. There has been no shortage of process targets in the NHS, but the one-year survival figures focus on outcomes, and that is the true measure of whether the processes are having an effect. By using outcome measures, we are leaving a large element of discretion to CCGs to introduce the initiatives they think best fit their local populations. That does not necessarily mean big cost increases to introduce such initiatives. Better awareness campaigns and better screening uptake figures do not necessarily cost a lot of money at a local level; they just take a bit of thought.
David Mowat
I agree completely with my hon. Friend that it is right that we use outcome measures. I come back to the point that the Government did a big thing in publishing the statistics for every CCG in the country. That allowed headlines to be out there in the press— we all saw them—that 80% of CCGs need to improve. We used a pretty rigorous test to assess the CCGs. If we reach those levels, we will be close to being the best in Europe as we make progress.
I am coming towards the end of my time. I want to finish by re-emphasising the Government’s commitment to early diagnosis. I have not had a chance to talk about our public health measures and all that goes with them, but I thank my hon. Friend again for getting us this debate. I emphasise my commitment to work with him and the APPG to make progress in this area.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Healthcare (Devon)
(8 years, 1 month 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
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered healthcare provision in Devon.
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, which I am sure will be fair and impartial; if only that were the case elsewhere in the House. It is a particular pleasure to welcome the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne); I fear he has had quite a few outings already this week, and will have more. I make no apology for summoning him here, on behalf of my colleagues from Devon, to address an issue that will not go away any time soon. I suspect that this will be one of many occasions on which we will seek to ask pertinent questions on behalf of our constituents across the county.
Healthcare is one of the biggest issues in Devon, largely for two reasons. The first is the demographics of the county: 17.7% of the UK population are aged 65 and over; that rises to 21.1% in the south-west and, in my part of the south-west—East Devon—to 27.7%, which is 10% more than the national average. Secondly, reforms are coming down the line, involving bed closures and so forth, that are sometimes seen as controversial. They are a result of the perilous state of Devon’s NHS, which is there for us all to see. Before we start our long list of asks and demands, it is worth remembering that the Northern, Eastern and Western Devon clinical commissioning group’s financial deficit is due to hit £490 million by 2019, which is clearly unsustainable.
Before I launch into my pleas and points, I point out the absence of some colleagues from Devon from across the political spectrum who I know feel passionately about this. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) are both detained in the Select Committee on Health. I believe that they have either just interviewed, or are interviewing as we speak, the Secretary of State for Health and the chief executive of NHS England. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) is unable to take part in the debate on account of his particular office. He has an excellent relationship with the GPs in his constituency, and he is supportive of wellbeing hubs, provided they serve the local community appropriately.
On the whole, we welcome the Government’s intervention in Devon’s NHS in the form of the success regime. If followed properly, it will help to solve some of the underlying problems that beset Devon’s national health service. As part of its work, the success regime, along with the CCG, has recently published proposals to close 72 hospital beds in Exeter and East Devon. The Minister will quite properly respond that that is under consultation, but I think this is the only way that we can raise these points in a public forum to make sure that everybody knows what we are thinking.
I understand that recently, the success regime, although it has a preferred option, which includes the rather expensive Labour deal on Tiverton hospital, has now introduced a “none of the above” option. If that is now an option, it creates a whole new range of possibilities. If that is not an option, I argue—my colleagues will argue for other things—that option B, which sees the beds retained in Tiverton, and also in Sidmouth and Exmouth, is the option worthy of support. Sidmouth has an extremely high proportion of over-85s, with people increasingly living longer, and of people with dementia. Exmouth is the biggest town in Devon with more than 35,000 people.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Main, for allowing me to serve under your chairmanship. Plymouth has around a quarter of a million people, and is the largest urban conurbation in the whole of Devon.
Sir Hugo Swire
As my hon. Friend knows, Plymouth is a unitary authority; Exmouth is the biggest town in Devon. Local people—my constituents—are hugely supportive of our community hospitals. We have beds in Exmouth and Sidmouth; in Ottery St Mary we have 16 stroke beds, although they are eventually to be replaced by a health hub; and Budleigh Salterton hospital, which I will talk about in due course, will, we hope, be turned into a health and wellbeing hub.
Over the years, many local residents have donated significant sums to the hospitals. In Sidmouth alone, the Sidmouth Victoria hospital comforts fund has raised over £5 million. Local people are prepared to invest in ensuring first-class local health services. I pray in aid the position of Sid valley Admiral nurse—the Admiral nurse helps people with dementia—which was hugely supported locally. I am pleased to say that I was able to play my part in obtaining additional funding for that position from the Big Lottery Fund. If there is an identifiable health issue locally, people are prepared to back care with their own money.
If the Minister will allow me, I will talk about the consultation process and the lack of documentation. As I understand it, the consultation process has been overwhelmingly carried out online; there are very few paper copies of the consultation. Elderly people, who may have no access to the internet and who are disproportionately likely to be affected by the changes, are therefore disadvantaged. The consultation period ends on Friday 6 January. I ask the Minister to do everything he can to look at the issue, and to work out how we can get more people involved in what is, after all, an extraordinarily important process.
The potential closure of hospital beds raises the issue of 21st century healthcare, which obviously includes preventive as well as curative care. My constituents—like many across the country, we are told—prefer to be treated at home for as long as possible. They understand, on the whole, that community hospitals need to change and adapt in order to offer a service fit for the 21st century. In Budleigh Salterton, we have been working very hard to try to ensure that the community hospital is transformed into a health and wellbeing hub, which will involve bringing together the health, social care and voluntary sectors. I think that is a good template that can possibly be used across the country. In fact, if it works, there will be far greater footfall through the community hospital than there has been while it has been just a hospital. I remain very supportive of that.
There is, of course, a negative side to keeping people in hospital beds. According to Angela Pedder, the lead chief executive of the success regime, the cost of running a 16-bed community hospital ward is £75,000 a month. Home care could look after 82 people for the same money. However, we are in danger of putting the cart before the horse. Until we can absolutely ensure that we have got social care right, we should not look at unnecessarily closing community beds that some people will have to use. Equally, I am nervous that, just because we have well-supported community hospitals across East Devon, we are being targeted unfairly, so as to rebalance the books across other parts of the county.
If we are reducing the number of hospital beds, it is absolutely essential that the social care system is able to compensate for that loss. In the past five years, council budgets for social care have fallen behind demand by £5 billion, and 150,000 fewer people receive at-home help than five years ago. Social care can take the financial pressure off the NHS. For instance, the installation of a simple grab-rail in an elderly person’s home can help to prevent the falls and broken bones that cost the NHS £2 billion a year. The option of making greater use of technology remains hugely under-exploited, in terms of how we ensure that people are getting a first-rate service at home.
I am sure my colleagues will want to raise the whole issue of rurality this afternoon. Government policies are meant to be rural-proofed. Frankly, social care is far easier to administer in a conurbation such as Plymouth than in other parts of the county, where people are spread over much greater distances.
Another issue that I am sure some of my colleagues will want to talk about is recruitment. We are told that social care will be one of the big growth industries in future. That is all to the good, and it is inevitable. However, currently, people find it very difficult to recruit. It is much easier, I am told, for the NHS to recruit people to work in social care than it is for the private sector. It is all very well transferring people back home, but only provided that there are the people to carry out the social care.
Stephen Dorrell, a former Health Secretary, has said:
“Fetishising the NHS budget and imagining it’s the only public service that relates to health is fundamentally to miss the point…It is not true to say we are supporting the health service by asking it to do social care. We are using the health service as a very expensive social care service and then talking about efficiency. It’s insane economics and very bad social policy.”
I would like to know if the Minister agrees, and what he feels can be done to ensure that we have first-class social care in place before we start to close community beds. Given the closure of residential homes, and the fact that local authorities are increasingly unwilling to pay the fees demanded by residential homes, we might end up in a situation where, although a person can no longer be cared for at home and needs some kind of hospital bed—we want to keep them away, of course, from the main hospitals—we have got rid of all our beds, or a disproportionate number, and so have created an unnecessary problem.
I want to say something about NHS Property Services. Since the NHS provider in Devon changed from Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust to Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust—at least in my part of the county—on 1 October, ownership of the community hospitals has transferred to NHS Property Services. NHS Property Services, as we know, charges commercial rents, meaning that many hospitals will have to pay higher rent. Along with the planned bed closures, that has understandably made some of our constituents nervous. What happens if hospitals cannot pay the rent? Given that the Department of Health has committed to meeting any increased property costs for 2017 and 2018, the big question is what happens thereafter.
My general practitioners at the Blackmore health centre in Sidmouth increasingly feel that they have little influence over the redevelopment of the surgery, which I champion, as a result of the involvement of NHS Property Services. The practice wants to buy the building off NHS Property Services, either now or at some stage in future. It is proving extremely difficult to make that happen. It should be a simple move, as it is supported by local GPs and the local community.
There is some concern about Exmouth—Devon’s biggest town—losing its out-of-hours GP services, which will be replaced with use of the 111 service, in line with the new integrated urgent care commissioning standards. Perhaps the Minister could write to me to reassure me that my constituents in Exmouth will receive exactly the same cover that they did under the previous arrangement.
One thing that affects all of us across Devon is the lack of provision of mental health facilities, which has exercised us for a long time. In my patch, I am concerned about St John’s Court, which is the only mental health and recovery facility in Exmouth. Two years ago, Devon Partnership NHS Trust spent £300,000 on a move from Danby Terrace, which was not at the time fit for purpose, to St John’s Court. On top of that, £140,000—this is all taxpayers’ money—was spent on refurbishing St John’s Court. Now the trust is pushing ahead with closing and selling St John’s Court. It has assured us that Exmouth will not experience a reduction in healthcare provision, and that St John’s Court will not be sold until an alternative venue can be found. We are talking about a growing town with a lot of mental health issues. I seek reassurance from the Minister that before anything is closed, something will be put in place to reassure the local community and my constituents that we have the same, if not a better, level of mental ill-health prevention and cure.
I wanted to speak for longer, but I am conscious that my colleagues will probably want to articulate their own slightly different visions for the future of healthcare in Devon. I say to the Minister in the friendliest manner possible that we are a pretty quiet bunch in our part of the world, and we do not seek trouble, but we do fight tenaciously to protect the livelihoods of our constituents. Too often, we feel that people forget about us in the south-west, and that money is diverted to all kinds of infrastructure projects in the huge urban conurbations, the northern powerhouse and so forth. This time, we will speak as one to ensure that whatever comes out of these consultations, and wherever we end up after them, we can argue these points in a mature way. It is simply no good saying, “It’s a lack of money. It’s Tory cuts.” That is an immature conversation to have. We have to, between us, design a health and social care service that is fully integrated, makes use of technology, and cares for all of us as we get older and more dependent. We need to be brave, but political sloganising is not the answer.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing this debate on a topic that is vital for all us, right across Devon?
It will not be a surprise to anyone that I intend to focus mercilessly on North Devon and to fight our corner very hard indeed against the threat to our acute services at the North Devon district hospital in Barnstaple. Before I go into that in any detail, I want to make a couple of points. First, I would like to thank the Minister, who has on a number of occasions met myself and other colleagues in Devon to address this issue. I know he understands the particular significance of the North Devon district hospital, because I have discussed it with him, as I have with a whole slew—I am not sure what the collective noun is—of managers in the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust and other directors and managers within NHS England, who by now are well aware of the strength of feeling in North Devon. I want to put it on record that the Minister has been very proactive in arranging such meetings.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon talked about community hospital beds. I do not want the impression to be given that that is not a serious issue also in North Devon, although I will not be majoring on it. In North Devon, there is a bit of history. We did the heavy lifting with the loss of many of our community hospital beds about 18 months ago under a different process from the one now being undertaken in the rest of the county. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the need to look very carefully at the provision of social care before community hospital beds are removed.
I do not think NHS England has done this in the right order. Community hospital beds have been removed in North Devon, specifically from the Tyrrell hospital in Ilfracombe, and there is a great amount of concern among the local community about what is replacing that provision. Is there integrated and fully functioning health and social care provision in North Devon to replace those beds? My view is that the answer is no. That is also the view of the community in Ilfracombe. Last Friday I met the League of Friends of the Tyrrell Hospital, and that is strongly their view. That is not my major point today, but I want it on record that that remains a concern in North Devon, as it will become in other parts of the county.
My focus today is on acute services in North Devon. The community is extremely concerned. Many constituents have contacted me and shown their strength of feeling through protests on the street, campaign marches and letters to me, as the local MP, and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), whose constituents also use the North Devon district hospital in Barnstaple.
My point is absolutely clear and I will make it up front: there must be no cuts to acute services at North Devon district hospital in Barnstaple. I cannot see any clinical argument to justify even consideration of any such a reduction in services, let alone its implementation. Let me provide some background.
Healthcare in Devon is currently subject to not one but two separate review processes. We have the success regime, and the Northern, Eastern and Western Devon clinical commissioning group area was given this special treatment with only two other areas in the country—one in Essex and one in Cumbria. Because of the need to ensure that we do not fall into a future funding black hole, the success regime was implemented. I fully support that because we need this special treatment.
On top of the success regime we have a sustainability and transformation plan, which, as hon. Members will know, is being implemented in all NHS regions in England. We have this two-tier process and my understanding from conversations with NHS England is that the success regime will probably be folded into the sustainability and transformation plan, so North Devon will find itself subject to a target that we are at least more easily able to identify. The difficulty is that the ideas that are starting to emerge from the two, soon to be one, reviews are simply unpalatable for North Devon.
I put it on the record that I am fully aware that these are not firm proposals or ideas and no public consultation has been launched. None the less, what has started to emerge has, reasonably and understandably, created serious concern in the North Devon community because, looking across the piece at the various documents that have emerged from both the success regime and the sustainability and transformation plan, we see a picture that puts under threat some of the services at North Devon district hospital, which my constituents rely on most keenly and have done for generations. They include vital services such as accident and emergency, stroke and one that I want to focus on now, maternity.
I have here one of the latest documents to emerge, which hon. Members may remember. Unfortunately, NHS England decided not to make this series of documents public. I say gently to the Minister that that has not been helpful. I know it was not his direction, but it has given rise to the belief that stuff is being done in private behind closed doors and that leads to suspicions, rightly, among my constituents and the public in general. That latest document, which is about five weeks old, starts by talking about
“a two-site option for maternity”
and states that the
“Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital would most probably be the second site”—
after Derriford in Plymouth—
“rather than North Devon District Hospital”.
That is a clear indication that consideration is being given to closing the maternity unit at North Devon district hospital. That is not acceptable to my constituents and we will fight any such proposals if they come forward. We will do that forcefully for a couple of reasons.
North Devon is a special case, not least because of our geography. I have said many times in this Chamber, in the House and elsewhere that Devon has been historically underfunded, and North Devon even more so. We are and have been for too long the poor relation in public funding. Let me be clear. This is not something that has happened in the last 18 months or the last six and a half years. It has been an issue under Governments of all colours for many years, if not decades. It is something up with which we will no longer put.
Part of the difficulty of singling out North Devon and Barnstaple as a place that can apparently sustain further reductions in services is that we start from a lower base of funding than in many other regions. That feeds perfectly into the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon raised about rurality. North Devon is a largely rural constituency, and for many years a series of funding formulae have dealt unfairly with North Devon because of its rurality. There seems to have been a belief that, because we are a rural area with a sparse population, we can somehow do with less funding. In fact, the opposite is true, and I am delighted that this Government are starting to recognise that. Across the piece of funding for local government, the police, education and health services, we are starting to right that wrong and equalise that funding gap, but the history is still there and that is why North Devon is the last place where we should be looking for further cuts.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene during his limited time in this debate, but I would like to respond specifically to his point about funding and allocations.
In the 2016-17 funding round, the allocation formulae have been looked at again and we have, for the first time in several years, introduced three differentials that are relevant to rural areas and that I think will affect my hon. Friends here. They include looking at the combination of rurality, remoteness and sparsity of population to improve the ambulance emergency cost adjustment, to reflect the greater distances travelled in rural areas; an adjustment to support continued provision by hospitals with 24/7 A&E services that are remote from the wider hospital network—my hon. Friend’s North Devon district hospital will be one of those’and an adjustment to remove from the formula supply-induced demand in urban areas where people live close to hospitals. Those three measures have led to a change and I gently suggest that my hon. Friend may care to look at the CCG allocations table which sets that out. For Northern, Eastern and Western Devon CCG, the per capita allocation for 2016-17 is £1,250, which is slightly above the average for England of £1,221 per head.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I thank the Minister for his intervention and I welcome it, but I say gently to him and NHS England, which I am sure is monitoring this, that all that good work will be entirely undone if we then lose our acute services at North Devon district hospital. This is not about figures on a spreadsheet; it is about the services and healthcare provision that my constituents will receive in Barnstable.
I am aware of the time, Mrs Main, but I want to raise a second issue, which is important and recognisable to us in North Devon, but perhaps not to those beyond: our unique geography and the distances. An Australian historian once referred to the tyranny of distance, and I think we suffer from that in North Devon. If one looks at a map, it is all too easy to think that there is a decent road network between Barnstaple and Exeter. I can give several reasons why that would be a wrong assumption. First, vast numbers of people live in isolated regions far north of Barnstaple. Secondly, the road network is not all it is cracked up to be—although that is a subject for another day and one on which I am fighting heavily.
My main point is that what no map or distance table shows is that in North Devon we have pockets of serious deprivation. In Ilfracombe, I have two of the most deprived wards in the south-west and by some metrics the most deprived in south England. In those areas car ownership is less than 80%. Put another way, one in five households do not have access to their own private transport and, because of the demographics, some of those who do are elderly and perhaps have their own vehicle but simply would not feel comfortable or up to going long distances to Exeter or Plymouth. Those two reasons alone are sufficient to argue strongly that the last place where we should be looking to make cuts to acute services is at North Devon district hospital.
I am aware of the time, Mrs Main, so I will conclude. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at the funding. I welcome the repeated assurances that local clinicians will make the final decisions. However, I want it to be in no doubt whatever—the community of North Devon are very clear about this—that North Devon is a special case and needs to be treated as such. In that regard, I make no apologies whatever for fighting for North Devon and for appealing for there to be common sense and no cuts at North Devon district hospital.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
We have approximately 35 minutes before the winding-up speeches and there are five speakers. I am sure we can do the maths.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing the debate. I will be mindful of your comments about the time. I presume that a maximum of eight minutes will be appropriate.
Kevin Foster
I am reminded that it is seven minutes. [Interruption.] The more heckling there is, the longer I might get.
For me, this debate is prompted by what is one of the greatest successes of the NHS: the fact that life expectancies are rising. In parts of my constituency, life expectancy has reached 90, and in one ward that I represent, Wellswood, 9% of the entire population are aged over 85. That brings challenges not only in health and social care, but in relation to the wider selection of services that those who have reached that age will need in order to have a whole life and not just have their healthcare needs taken into account.
Today, however, the focus is on the health service. Clearly, the proposals announced by South Devon and Torbay clinical commissioning group have created a lot of concern across Torquay, Paignton and the rest of the bay and south Devon. In fact, public concern was so great that the first three consultation meetings that it arranged in Paignton did not go particularly well. It arranged what were obviously going to be very large meetings in rather small venues, so when I attended the first one, at 9 am, I found myself, with about 40 residents, my predecessor, the former mayor and a number of councillors, plus trade union representatives, being told that the room was full and we could not go in. Things got worse at the 4 o’clock meeting. I ended up addressing more people at an impromptu meeting on the steps of the venue than had actually got into the official meeting. Then finally, in the evening, although there was a reserved seat for me, that meant that another resident was turned away because I was there speaking. It was a shambolic start to a serious consultation, but thankfully I notice the trust has now arranged further meetings.
Local concern about Paignton hospital is so great because of the breadth and importance of the services that it provides, not least the beds that many people are discharged to from Torbay hospital. When the Public Accounts Committee did its recent report on delayed discharges, Torbay had one of the best records. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon would reflect that, sadly, the Royal Devon and Exeter did not. That is not so much about the hospital’s own services as about its ability to discharge to a social care setting.
We have already seen the impact that the consultation has had in terms of beds. Qualified staff have decided to seek jobs elsewhere, seeing the numbers of beds already reduced. During the consultation, the fact that there are hundreds of beds in residential and nursing care homes in Paignton was cited. I took the time to ask the obvious question: how many of those are actually vacant at the moment? The answer that I got back—this was a snapshot taken two weeks ago—was that 12 of the beds are vacant, yet two are in places that are accepting no new placements at the moment and four are in a place that specialises in caring for children. That causes real concern that we will see more delayed discharges at our local hospital if the proposals for Paignton go ahead.
Many residents of Paignton are concerned about the wider clinical services provided there, not least the minor injuries unit. The suggestion made in the consultation is that if a minor injuries unit closes at Paignton, residents will travel to either Totnes or Newton Abbot. I am sure that we will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) that the facility there is in excellent condition, but the reality is that that involves travelling past the acute hospital at Torbay, with its A&E department. I think it is far more likely that there will be more pressure as a result of people who would have been at the minor injuries unit in Paignton ending up at A&E in Torbay—the very place that we want to discourage people from going to unless they need to be there. There are also services such as X-rays and other clinics that many local residents find convenient and that support local GPs in delivering excellent healthcare.
My other concern about the consultation document is that although it is very detailed about what will be taken away from the south Devon area, it is not detailed at all about what will replace it. For example, there is talk of a clinical hub in Paignton, but no location. There is talk of doing more through GP surgeries, yet many of the practices are in buildings that predate 1948 and are in effect converted houses—not places that would be able to provide extended facilities for healthcare.
I find it very concerning when I speak with local people about what engagement there will genuinely be as part of the consultation, not least given the meetings arranged for small venues and the way that much of the questioning really produces only one logical answer. No one is going to say, “Yes, I’d like to spend the night in hospital,” but we would spend the night in hospital if we felt that we needed to be there. This is about ensuring that people have genuinely been able to express their views. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take a close look at the consultation being undertaken.
In closing, I emphasise the point that has been made about recruitment. The movement of qualified staff out of Paignton the moment the proposals to close the hospital were mooted speaks to a wider problem of recruitment across health and social care in south Devon. Although seeing the Torbay and South Devon trust receive Fair Train’s gold standard work experience accreditation last Friday was welcome, more still needs to be done to convince people that careers in health and social care are just that: careers. Many male jobseekers in particular see a job in that field as an entry-level job that they would not progress from, yet there are so many opportunities there. This is another concern for me, as it is for colleagues. We can put things down on paper, but if, in the social care market locally, there are not the providers, there is not the quality of provider and, bluntly, the vacancies that we already have for GPs are spreading across other health professions, then whatever position we come up with in the consultation will not be able to be implemented unless we address those long-term challenges in our economy.
Sir Hugo Swire
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about recruitment in social care and care homes: that a lot of staff are, of course, from the Philippines and other countries around the world? We must all hope that that is taken into account when the UK comes up with a new immigration policy.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is worth saying that the outcome of the EU referendum and Brexit is probably not going to affect those from the Philippines, given that the Philippines is not a member, but I fully accept the point that we have for too long relied on importing healthcare professionals—doctors and others. We have to have a debate about whether it is ethical for us basically to be depopulating parts of the third world of much-needed doctors, nurses and other trained medical professionals and to be relying on other countries’ training schemes to provide the numbers of healthcare professionals we need. The key point is that we want our own young people to be taking up those opportunities, as well as having the services provided.
I can see you indicating that my time is coming to an end, Mrs Main, or has come to an end. I will finish with one plea: I want to see Paignton hospital and Paignton people’s services continuing into the future.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing the debate. Over the next few moments, I want to concentrate on NHS England’s proposals to close three GP surgeries in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency and how I hope we can take some pressure off the principal acute hospital at Derriford in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
I am told that the reason why NHS England is considering the closures is the size of the GP practices. The Cumberland GP practice has 1,800 patients, Hyde Park 2,800 and St Barnabas 1,700. They are considered by NHS England to be unsustainable and too small. It also tells me that closing those practices is not down to saving money, but to deliver better value for money. However, before I speak about those issues, let me put my constituency in context.
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport runs from the A38 down to the sea and from the River Plym to the River Tamar. It is the home of one of the largest universities in the country, with more than 27,000 students, thousands of whom live in the city centre, and it is a naval and Royal Marine Commando garrison city, as my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in a previous life, knows only too well.
The city’s population is growing. Although it has a global reputation for marine science and engineering and research, it is a low-wage and low-skills economy. It is an inner-city seat. I do not have a single piece of countryside in my constituency, unless we include the Ponderosa pony sanctuary, which is a rather muddy field. Between Compton and Peverell in the north-east of my constituency and Devonport in the south-west, there is an 11-year life expectancy difference. Compton and Peverell is where many of the university lecturers and hospital consultants live. In the run-up to the 2010 general election, when I won the seat on the third attempt, the Conservative party pledged to do something about healthcare in deprived inner cities.
We have started to make good our word. In 2014, our hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), one of the Minister’s ministerial predecessors, came to Devonport to open the Cumberland GP practice, which is now under threat. Other facilities on the Cumberland campus include a minor injuries unit, the new Devonport health centre and a pharmacy. The Cumberland GP practice was set up by Plymouth Community Healthcare—now Livewell Southwest—and the Peninsula medical school. There was and is a desperate need to provide a tailor-made alternative service to the existing GP practice—then the Marlborough Street practice; now the Devonport health centre—for this deprived Devonport community, and a need to look after drug users and the city’s homeless in hostels such as the neighbouring Salvation Army’s.
The practice also offers practical placements to students at the Plymouth medical school. Until earlier this year it was funded by Livewell Southwest, a social enterprise, which found it too expensive to maintain. Despite Devonport’s real deprivation, NHS England did not want to get involved in providing a contract to the Cumberland GP practice, which has consequently been operating without a formal contract and is managed by Access Health Care.
I understand that in the past the neighbouring Devonport health practice has not been interested in offering facilities to homeless people and drug users. Indeed, I understand that some of the Cumberland practice’s patients were not keen to transfer back to the Devonport centre, which is where they came from in the first place.
NHS England’s reason for putting the Cumberland GP practice under threat is because it considers it to be too small and is operating in unsuitable, cramped premises. Unless we are very careful, we could potentially put more pressure on Derriford’s acute emergency unit, which is under enormous pressure. I became aware of NHS England’s proposals for the three GP practices in August, during the summer recess, when no doubt NHS England expected me and other MPs to be away on parliamentary trips or taking a holiday. I immediately put together a series of meetings with the city council’s director of public health, the leader of the council and the cabinet member for adult social care, people from NHS England, the dean of the medical school and Dr Richard Ayres, who runs the Cumberland GP practice.
At the meeting I suggested that the Cumberland GP practice could share Devonport health centre’s brand-new building, which has space and operates as a federation, sharing receptionists and back-room staff. This was supported by everyone present. Indeed, the city council’s health and wellbeing board also supported it following an inquiry that recommended measures to allow the Cumberland GP practice to continue. However, I understand that Devonport healthcare might not be willing to do this, and it appears that the Devonport community may be deprived of a second GP practice and that patients will have no choice in which doctor they can go to.
I have also had representations from patients at both Hyde Park and St Barnabas surgeries. At Hyde Park, although Dr Stephen Warren is keen to continue as a GP following a heart attack, he has transferred the ownership of his practice to Access Health Care, as he no longer wishes to deal with the back-room tasks of administration, which is part of running a practice. He argues that his and his partner’s growing 2,800 practice—the Cumberland is growing as well—has attracted outstanding reviews and he would not be able to inform his patients where he was going if he relocated to another practice. He also thinks that some patients like to have a relationship with an individual doctor who they can see speedily rather than having to wait weeks.
The St Barnabas surgery, which is also run by Access Health Care, was set up in a new development next to a residential care home for the elderly where patients do not have to walk far to get to it. In all three cases, NHS England, for supposedly technical reasons, gave patients only 24 hours’ notice of their initial engagement. I must say I found the public consultation process utterly appalling. I wrote to NHS England asking it to give more time to engage with local communities, and I am grateful that it bothered to listen.
On Friday, at my weekly constituency surgery, I was asked to write to NHS England to ask whether it had engaged with other GP surgeries and with Derriford hospital and whether it had consulted them, because some GPs will have to accommodate more patients. That is a big issue.
There are wider issues in all this. At the moment, commissioners in north, east and west Devon spend a higher amount of money in east Devon than in the more deprived western locality. The Government’s success regime is keen to correct that, so that resources are focused on deprived communities such as Devonport. Finally, we need to make much more use of pharmacies. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I am the Government’s pharmacy champion. What are we going to do to make sure we have pharmacy funding and how will that operate?
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Devon shares a challenge with many other rural parts of the country. We can safely say that the things we are asking and lobbying for have a general application. From the Minister’s perspective, something that has a more general application will be much more acceptable.
We have an above average number of over-85s with complex co-morbidities, as do many other rural areas, because people like to retire to such places. We know that travel distances in Devon are particularly acute. We have been compared to Denmark in terms of the numbers of roads that we have.
It is absolutely right to raise the recruitment challenge, but it is not a simple question of not being able to get people; there simply are not enough people to get. Previous Governments have inadequately provided for training. In addition, we have the challenge of attracting people to work in a rural location. Rural locations are fine if someone is retiring there; young individuals want to live in cities; and that is the challenge. On top of that, the cost of living also makes a post in a rural area unattractive.
Perhaps the most difficult problem is the one-size-fits-all approach that previous Governments have focused on. The model for funding and for structures is built around an urban model where there are numbers and therefore productivity. The challenge we have is the lack of footfall, except in tourist times. We need to tick the box not only for the funding formula but for the new integrated models of care that look at integrating vertically and horizontally across primary and secondary care. The multi-specialty community provider and primary and acute care systems will simply not work where we are, which means that we cannot use the same solutions as other areas.
Devon is a prime example of all these problems. We have three different reviews going on. We have the success regime in north Devon; the consultation on primary care, which last year took place in south Devon and is now taking place in Northern, Eastern and Western Devon; and the sustainability and transformation plans, which have been relatively recently brought into play. As has already been mentioned, Angela Pedder, the leader of our STP, will look at combining all the reviews.
The real challenge that we face is the speed at which implementation of the changes is being considered. As other hon. Members have said, it makes it almost impossible to put in place the needed care in the community. Of more concern to me is the fact that nowhere have we really addressed the need for a proper strategy for rural healthcare. I have read the five-year plan, and the word “rural” appears three times. I have been frustrated, when I have written to the Minister’s predecessors to ask about a rural strategy, because they have told me that there is one, when the truth is that there is not. There is an urgent need for a proper review of examples from around the world—Australia and New Zealand. There are plenty of examples. Even China has a proper strategy, and other countries think about such things in a very different way. That, to me, is crucial.
The other day I attended a workshop with the Nuffield Trust, the ambulance service and a number of hospital trusts, looking at what is happening and what we need to do. In rural areas things are at crisis point. Care homes are closing and are not being replaced with new ones—at least not in rural areas. They tend to be developed in city areas. The result will be a change in the population mix in rural areas, which will lead to economic deprivation and then social deprivation. We need to accept that rural communities are different. They need to be supported; otherwise, the consequences will not be as simple as whether we lose a hospital. The taxes raised in this country are generated predominantly in the city, but we accept that they should be spent across the country; equally, that is how we should deal with our rural communities.
We should review and amend the funding formula. I am pleased to hear of the changes in allocation which are coming shortly. However, the issue is more fundamental than the funding formula. One of our challenges is the fact that the needs are different in each rural area, but training regimes have become increasingly specialised. There are many individuals who specialise, in a number of different specialisms; the current regime structure requires a certain number of specialists, in each of those specialisms, to get a tick in the box to say that an area is safe. We need more generalists, not more specialists. Several royal colleges are already considering the generalising of training, but we need conversations to happen not just within those royal colleges but between them, and Government should sponsor and support that. We also need to get acceptance within the trusts that recruit the individuals. If they will not accept the new generalists, we shall have a problem.
We need more generalists and we need more geriatricians. We also need to think carefully about how to deliver urgent care. Urgent care and accident and emergency are not entirely the same. Some of the models used in other parts of the world, such as Australia, are very interesting. It is wrong to say that if there cannot be an A & E department the hospital must go. There are many different ways to provide what we need, and we must look at that. We must also review the regulatory criteria. Regulators say, “You need a person with this job description and this expertise and training.” At the moment regulators will not allow an organisation to accept someone with the right skill mix but without the specific tick-the-box qualifications. That needs to change.
As to the care home sector, we clearly need hard measures, but we need soft measures too. The human side of social care is as important as the technical side. A challenge with respect to the agenda for integrating health and social care is to scrutinise the commissioning of social care in the same way as the commissioning of NHS care. At the moment that is not happening. I do not think I am wrong if I say that there is now a bit of a lottery, based on where people live, for how much money is allocated and therefore how good the care is.
My final plea is about the long-term plan. With increasing development and population—whatever happens about immigration—we need to ensure that we plan. At the moment, the NHS is not a statutory consultee in the planning process; and that needs to be rectified.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) for obtaining this debate, which is very timely.
Consultation should be about consultation. The CCG has presented four options: in option A Tiverton has 32 beds, Seaton 24 and Exmouth 16; in option B Tiverton has 32, Sidmouth 24 and Exmouth 16; in option C Tiverton has 32, Seaton 24 and Exeter 16; and in option D Tiverton has 32, Sidmouth 24 and Exeter 16. There is no sign of Okehampton or Honiton hospitals on the consultation. Beds there are simply said to be closed. Is that consultation? In our original reforms of the health service we said that local people must be consulted. Angela Pedder did exactly the same in Axminster, two years ago, as is being done now; she just came and said the beds were to be closed. There were no alternatives or consultation—just “We have made the decision, we know best, and we will overrule anybody who says any different.”
I tell the Minister that that is not consultation; we must make sure that consultation happens. Honiton is a great hospital. It currently has 18 beds and offers midwife-led births, a minor injuries unit, therapies, outpatients, X-ray and GP-allocated primary care services. It has an outstanding reputation and is often referred to locally as the Honiton Hilton, because it provides such great services. People in Honiton have supported it for generations, and that is what is so essential. We have an ageing population in Devon. My constituency starts in Uplyme. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has Great Torrington in his constituency up in the north-west. Lifton is down in one corner of the county, and it goes right up to beyond Ilfracombe. The county is massive, and it is being suggested that community hospitals should be closed. The Royal Devon and Exeter hospital will be under great pressure to keep its acute beds free. Yet we are closing down community hospitals that could ease the pressure on acute hospitals. That seems to be taking things in totally the wrong direction.
I welcomed the Minister’s intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) about the reallocation of funds. Are not the consultations therefore premature? Do they not exclude whole hospitals from being considered at all, and should not that be reviewed? Can the Minister ask for that? The independent health service review looked at the case of Torrington and said that it should not have been closed. As to Axminster, we still do not have a proper facility and we do not know how it will be engaged. Not only are the CCGs taking beds away from community hospitals; they are not putting anything in their place.
I make a plea to the Minister: what are we to do? We have an ageing population; the age profile of Axminster is probably what the whole country’s will be in 2035. Our population is healthy but growing older. We want to help people in their own homes. I am pleased for that to happen, and I think it is right, but we also need community hospitals. Honiton has excellent communications so it is easy to bring people in and out of the hospital, and it is a quick journey from the Royal Devon and Exeter to Honiton hospital if people need to be brought back to relieve the pressure on beds. I cannot see how it is possible to go forward with a consultation when a hospital is completely taken out. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is up to local people and organisations to decide; but there is a problem if, when local consultation comes along, a hospital is removed from the list. Also, when it comes to staffing, it does not help in getting staff for a local hospital if that hospital is threatened with closure.
I really feel that all our MPs across the whole of Devon need to unite, because over the last two years the number of beds in our community hospitals has been halved. I rather fear that we will be standing here in two years’ time saying that they have been halved again. Rather than fighting between each other over which hospitals are kept open and which are closed, let us fight all the closures across Devon. Otherwise we are just being picked off one by one, Minister, and this is not the way to run a health service in Devon.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
The problem with North Devon district hospital has for decades—certainly for as long as I have been in politics in Devon—been quite simple: it is a general hospital that is far out on a limb of sustainability, in terms of the range of services it offers. For decades, there has been a decision begging to be taken, but it has never had the proper, honest and frank discussion that it really needs.
A general hospital generally requires something around a third of a million people to sustain it. The population of northern Devon, including Torridge and the hospital’s catchment area, is some 80,000 or 90,000 people short of the figure that generally sustains a general hospital. However, historically, it has been universally accepted that Barnstaple requires a general hospital. We cannot provide health services to the population of northern Devon unless we have an acute hospital in Barnstaple. We are therefore faced with a clear and stark choice: either make a special case for funding it in the way that a rural hospital that otherwise could not survive needs to be funded, and make it an exception to the principles that apply to general hospitals for which the population is sufficient; or see it slowly wither on the vine, dying by a thousand cuts, and by weasel words used by clever civil servants and others to justify one saving after another. Those savings really mean services reduced, and patients redirected over 40, 50, 60 or 80 miles away, with some expected to travel into the heart of Somerset for treatment that other residents enjoy on their doorstep.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) said; there are red lines for Devon’s Members of Parliament. Of course we accept that the current model of healthcare cannot be preserved in aspic. There must be change and transformation, but we cannot put accountants’ methodology over the interests of patients and the citizens we represent.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I know the green and pleasant lands of Shropshire well. What a fine county it is. It, too, has had its battles on this score; I know, because I have family who live there. Let him come to Devon and see the wide distances. I do not believe that in Shropshire there is a place over 70 miles from a main conurbation, as many communities in my constituency are. Travelling 70 miles to, say, have a child delivered puts at risk and prejudices the interests of those who are to be treated.
A decision must be taken on health services in north Devon. It is the same with hospitals in the far north of Scotland; they are highly rural, deeply isolated and not sustainable unless a special formula and a special approach are taken. Words such as “care closer to home” are all well and fine, but the difficulty is that communities see an historic legacy of underfunding that has left the health authorities in our area with an £80 million annual deficit. That deficit has built up over decades of accounting measures, and of conjuring with accounts. On the one hand, communities see this vast deficit, and on the other, they hear words such as “care closer to the community,” or, “Cut your beds and we will provide you with a service that is just as good, and that better fulfils the needs of patients.” Of course we can listen to the logic and rationality of that argument, but while it is all the time moved by the spectre of deficit, they will suspect that it is being made for one reason only: to reduce the budget.
My plea is for fairness. It is a plea to be heard, made on behalf of a neglected, extraordinarily rural area—possibly one of the most rural in England. It is a plea for a special look at this problem in northern, eastern and western Devon. The language coming from well-meaning and, I accept, wholly sincere health administrators has an Orwellian flavour to it while it is governed by this shadow of deficit that hangs over it.
I welcome the news from my hon. Friend the Minister that there has been allowance for rurality in the 2016-17 budget, but one or two minor tweaks do not reverse the legacy of decades. The truth is that the health services we represent—of the people we represent—are being seen to perpetrate a grave injustice. For example, public health spending alone—spending on the prevention of ill health—in the county of Devon is less than half the national average. On any analysis, the funding we receive in Devon is wholly inadequate to deal with its wide disparities and distances, its ageing population, and the other factors that affect Devon.
My simple plea to the Minister today is to hear the voice of those whom we represent, and to hear them pleading with him. Until the deficit is addressed and there is fair funding for rural health services, we will not believe the assurances from well-meaning administrators that our health services are safe. They are not safe. We need a major amendment to the rural health funding formula; we need to improve on what has been done this year; and we need to assuage the anxieties of our constituents by a proper, demonstrably fair health funding formula.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) for tabling a debate on this important issue. It is heartening to see Members for Devon coming together with a unified voice on this subject. I, too, will mention Members who are not here today: the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who has been mentioned, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). As we speak, they are questioning the Secretary of State for Health on finance for the NHS—a subject that cannot be totally separated from the issue at hand.
The healthcare challenges that Devon faces are immense, but I disagree with some of the points that hon. Members have made. I do not believe that the challenges are limited to this region; I believe they are systemic. Demand for NHS services is increasing nationally faster than ever before, fuelled in part by an increase in social deprivation and an ageing population. The need to address the increased demand, together with the need to keep pace with new technologies, is placing hitherto unseen financial pressures on NHS providers.
There are 280,000 people in Devon living with one or more long-term conditions, such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension and cancer; 150,000 people have a mental illness; and there are 40,000 people with cancer who need rapid access to high-quality services. Alongside that increased demand, there have been cuts to adult social care, and to public health and prevention budgets. If we are just to stand still, funding needs to be increased by an extra 2.6% above inflation. I am interested to see whether the Minister’s promised extra funding matches that; I doubt that it will. If no changes are made by 2020, the NHS in Devon will face a deficit in excess of £440 million.
In 2015, the Northern, Eastern and Western Devon success regime was introduced by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, in an attempt to address the rising deficit and the failure to meet important health targets, including cancer waiting times. There is no doubt, as I am sure hon. Members agree, that there is a compelling case for change. Change is desirable; it would indeed be better for care to be more patient-centred, and of course it would be better to have more care needs met in the community. It is also true that the majority of patients receiving end-of-life care would prefer to die at home.
But, and it is a big “but”, change on this scale—massive, transformational change—needs leadership, transparency, a whole system change and, above all, investment. Making changes of this order—closing community hospitals with no proven plan for care in place—is downright reckless. That is why so many GPs in Devon are opposing the proposals, and have stated that they have
“grave concerns over patient safety.”
They say:
“we are concerned that the untried, untested closures of so many community hospital beds in this area could prove dangerous for a significant population of patients who might need to rely on community beds”.
The well-respected Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes, has declared that she also cannot support the plans without an assurance that services will improve as a result of the changes.
People the length and breadth of Devon have expressed their concerns. The very active women’s institute in Devon has raised objections, as have communities across Devon. As we have heard from Members today, the consultation process has been woefully inadequate; there have been undersized rooms, and an online consultation. Frankly, it is not good enough.
Everybody is right to be worried. Only last week, the Care Quality Commission published its report, entitled, “The state of health care and adult social care in England”. The report states that
“the sustainability of adult social care is approaching a tipping point”.
In addition to the financial pressures, the sector is also experiencing massive problems with recruitment and retention of staff. The people of Devon are being asked to place their trust in a system that is on already on the brink and, quite understandably, they are not going to—and nor should they.
Local GPs have described the proposals as a “hasty cost improvement process”. This is the crux of the matter: the proposals as they stand, without adequate funding for alternative care, will save money, but they will not improve patient care, and may even compromise patient safety. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Devon that the cart is being put before the horse; that absolutely hits the nail on the head. Local NHS trusts in Devon are on their knees, desperately crying out for more funding to enable them to plan for the increased demand and changing needs of the population in the 21st century. This is not just about extra funding, but about making the kind of transformational change that is needed to deliver high-quality, excellent healthcare in the 21st century. It needs proper planning and proper systems in place, and that cannot be achieved on the cheap.
I am shocked that in this context, the Prime Minister is refusing to give the health and social care sectors more funding, which they desperately need. We have one of the lowest percentages of health and social care funding, as a proportion of our GDP, in the entire region of Europe. That cannot be right. I urge the Minister to use whatever influence he has with the Prime Minister to get her to revisit this issue, for the sake of the people of Devon, and for people across the country. This situation is not unique to Devon; we face many of the same problems in my region of Lancashire and, as I know from my work with the Health Committee, across the country.
I also ask that the consultation process be firmed up, and that people be offered a full, transparent and real consultation, rather than lip service being paid to having one. During Health questions the other day, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), promised to visit Devon and to listen at first hand to stakeholders. I urge this Minister to take that away with him, and to look at making sure that the Government listen properly to the voices of Devon and the very legitimate concerns being raised in this debate. No one is trying to say that change is not needed, but one system cannot be taken away until there is a fully proven plan in place.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I call the Minister. If possible, could you leave a minute or two at the end for the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) to respond, Minister?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I am grateful to you for taking the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Main, and for encouraging me to leave some time for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) to respond, which I will endeavour to do. I congratulate him not only on securing this debate, which has been very well supported by his colleagues from across the county, but if I may—this is the first opportunity for me to do so publicly—on the recognition that he received of his time in Government from the previous Prime Minister.
I start by highlighting some of the excellent work carried out every day by all those who work in the NHS, not only in my right hon. Friend’s constituency but in mine and those of all the others who have spoken today. I will attempt to address some of the specific points that have been raised, particularly by my right hon. Friend, but I shall first provide the House with a little context and background regarding health services in Devon.
Devon is a leader in many areas of the health service—perhaps to the surprise of some hon. Members who have spoken—relative to other parts of the country. Not least, the Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust was the first trust in England to join up hospital and community care with social care. A plea to do that was made by my right hon. Friend and it is already happening in South Devon. The trust operates as a single organisation, working with partners to improve the way it delivers safe, high-quality health and social care. The trust is showcasing exactly the kind of joined-up, patient-centred care that we want the NHS to provide to meet the needs of the ageing population.
I also pay tribute to the staff at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, who last month celebrated their fifth anniversary since the last incident of hospital- acquired MRSA. That remarkable accomplishment comes as the result of continuous improvements at the trust over the last 10 years. The trust is now considered a national leader in infection control, being the only general hospital in the whole of England to have avoided any MRSA infections in the last five years.
However, I absolutely recognise that the region is facing difficulties. NHS staff across the region are working hard to provide good care to patients, but services are not keeping pace with the changing needs of local people. It is becoming increasingly difficult to make sure that local people have access to consistently high-quality care that is affordable and sustainable.
As my right hon. Friend said, in June 2015, NHS England announced that north, east and west Devon would be one of the three areas in the country to take part in a success regime. That is designed to improve health and care services for patients in local health and care systems that are struggling with financial or quality problems. Following intense diagnostic work, the north, east and west Devon success regime published, in February this year, the “Case for Change” report, which was referred to earlier. The report sets out the underlying challenges facing the area and the opportunities to improve access to services and ensure clinical and financial stability. The work concluded that if nothing was done, Northern, Eastern and Western Devon would have a system deficit of £398 million by 2020/21, as has been referenced by a couple of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper).
As well as the financial challenge, the work identified significant health inequalities and some clinical services that will be unsustainable in their current form. There are good reasons for that. As we have heard from hon. Members, people in north, east and west Devon are living longer successfully, particularly in areas of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon and in Torbay.
People are living with increasingly complex care needs and require more support from health and social care services. More than one in five people in north, east and west Devon are over the age of 65, and that figure will be almost one in four by 2021. Some 40% of local people use almost 80% of health and social care services. There are 280,000 local people, including 13,000 children, living with one or more long-term conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer and mental illness.
Although Devon is regarded from the outside as generally affluent, we are all aware—hon. Members have explained this—that there are areas of significant deprivation. There are big differences in health outcomes between some areas, particularly in Plymouth. There are also spending disparities between different parts of the county.
More than 10% less for each person is spent on healthcare in west Devon compared with north and east Devon, even when age and deprivation is taken into account, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) emphasised. Somebody living in Ilfracombe Central is statistically likely to die almost 15 years earlier than a person living a two-hour drive away in Newton Poppleford.
Inequalities need to be reduced, and the spread of health and social care across north, east and west Devon needs to be made more equal. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon agrees that his constituents should have access to the same high-quality healthcare services as those in the rest of Devon, let alone the rest of the country. He referred to the success regime consultation as being at fault. I gently remind him that it was only published on 7 October. I am sure that comments made today about the lack of available paper copies of the consultation will be taken into account by the organisers, and that we can respond to that.
Neil Parish
I want to press the Minister on the success regime’s consultation. Is it right for a hospital to have its beds taken away as part of that consultation? Surely a consultation should be for people to have a say on a public decision.
Mr Dunne
I heard my hon. Friend mention the lack of reference to Okehampton and Honiton. I gently draw attention to the fact that the option to retain community beds in both those hospitals was considered as part of the 15 options in the document. The option was rejected as one of the four recommended for consultation, but that does not prevent him, his constituents or local representatives in those areas from putting those alternative options forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon asked whether there was a “none of the above” option. I think he may have been referring to page 42 of the consultation document, on which the organisers say that they
“welcome all views and will carefully consider all responses and analyse these against the decision making criteria. That will include options which are not currently in the consultation document”.
They are open for proposals to be made by others, but those need to be looked at in the context of the criteria.
Sir Hugo Swire
I am grateful for that clarification. Presumably, that does not alter the fact that Tiverton—that rather expensive private finance initiative that we have inherited—stays part of any outcome.
Mr Dunne
My right hon. Friend would not expect me to be drawn on any of the specific options. I would not want to be seen to be influencing the consultation prematurely or, indeed, at all until we see the recommendations that come out of it.
It has come out of the investigations leading up to the consultation that every day more than 500 people in north, east and west Devon are being cared for in a hospital bed who do not need to be there. That is at the heart of the challenge that we face not just in Devon but across the country, as the hon. Member for Burnley mentioned.
The system is keeping people in community beds or acute beds longer than they need to be because of discharge challenges. That gets back to the initial remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon about whether we are integrating the consultation properly with improvements to social care. It is important, when we come to look at the recommendations arising from the consultation, that we take into account the capacity that will need to be created in social care to provide alternative models of care if the number of beds is reduced.
The formal consultation concludes on 6 January. As I have said, I will not comment on specifics while that is under way, but I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend, all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and those who were not able to because they are elsewhere in the House today to ensure that their views are taken into account. The next phase of the success regime will look at how services are provided in acute hospital settings, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon highlighted, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) in his characteristically robust contribution. I am sure that they will make their views known in the consultation that we anticipate will follow next summer, and the clinicians involved with the acute services will be preparing their recommendations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon is aware that the success regime plans are part of a broader sustainability and transformation plan that covers the whole of Devon. That creates the opportunity for health and local authorities—not just NHS bodies but local authorities with responsibility for social care—to work together to try to formulate plans that give care packages the kind of integration and coherence that hon. Members have sought for Devon. It will build on the work that has been done by north, east and west Devon’s success regime and on the “Case for Change” published by South Devon and Torbay CCG in September. The latest iteration of the plan is due to be submitted to NHS England this Friday.
Before I conclude, I can confirm that I will write to my right hon. Friend on the Exmouth out-of-hours service. I understand that he has a meeting with the Minister responsible for NHS property services later this month, so he will be able to take up his concerns then. On other challenges that were mentioned, we recognise that there is pressure on recruitment and retention of clinicians in rural areas. Hon. Members will be aware of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to try to recruit 25% more doctors over the next few years; of our plans to recruit up to 10,000 more nurses over this Parliament; and of the announcement, last week, that we will be introducing a new category of nursing associate to provide more capability. We are acutely aware of those needs.
It is the responsibility of local NHS organisations to determine how local services are delivered. Hon. Members have made some important points, and I urge them to do so as part of the consultation. I hope that we will have another opportunity to discuss the forthcoming recommendations.
Sir Hugo Swire
I am grateful for an interesting and mature debate. The Minister has an invidious job of trying to reconcile the competing demands across the country, to say nothing of the competing demands across God’s own county of Devon. I can think of no better man to attempt to do that. If the consultation is a genuine opportunity, and is not an excuse to reduce levels of care, the Minister will find us supportive. He will find us supportive if, as I suspect, the consultation is an opportunity to deliver a fully integrated hospital, and a community care and social care system, that is fit for the 21st century.
I am pleased to remember a conversation I had with the Secretary of State, who repeated his commitment to community hospitals. I leave the Minister with one thought: as the previous Prime Minister freely admitted, it was the Conservative party in the south-west that delivered a victory at the last general election. The Minister has seen how formidable we can be when we come together, and come together we will to protect our vital services for our constituents across the county of Devon.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Environmental Protection
(8 years, 1 month 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
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered policies, strategies and funding for environmental protection.
Like many MPs, I have a constituency with a large number of local nature reserves, special areas of conservation and two national nature reserves, one of which, Kenfig, is also a special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive, the Bridgend biodiversity action plan and the UK biodiversity action plan. It is a site of local, Welsh and European nature conservation importance. I have secured this debate to ask questions on the future protection of these sites and others like them across the UK, which urgently needs addressing following the Brexit decision.
I begin by recognising the excellent work of members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environmental Audit Committee and by acknowledging their lead in this field. The EAC’s report on UK and EU environmental policy should have been compulsory reading before voting in the Brexit referendum. We need answers to questions such as whether we have the technical, financial and legal expertise and capacity to respond to the environmental challenge of Brexit. The Wildlife Trusts, including my local Glamorgan wildlife trust, have said:
“The EU has the single largest body of environmental legislation in the world.”
The EU has had an exceptionally positive impact on our efforts to produce policy, influence development and safeguard our wildlife.
One conclusion of the EAC’s report is that
“the UK’s membership of the EU has improved the UK’s approach to environmental protection and ensured that the UK environment has been better protected.”
Many witnesses implied that if the UK were free to set its own environmental standards, it would set them at a less stringent level than has been imposed by the European Union.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My constituency contains the Newport wetlands, the Gwent levels, the River Usk and more. We should acknowledge that the Welsh Government have taken a great lead on environmental legislation in the UK. However, they can only do so much. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as with the Brexit negotiations generally, it is crucial that the Government work closely with the Welsh Administration in Cardiff for the good of the environment in Wales?
Mrs Moon
I intend to address that later in my speech, but it is a central part of the way forward as we find our way through the tangle that is Brexit.
The UK imposing less stringent levels of environmental protection was a major concern for the people who approached me to initiate this debate. I was asked how confident we could be that nature conservation would be protected and a priority post-Brexit. Lest we forget, in the biodiversity intactness index, which assesses how damaged nature is across the world, the UK is ranked 189th out of 218 countries—we are not exactly doing well at the moment. France and Germany are miles ahead of us because we have been less vigilant in implementing EU environmental legislation. It is clear that there was little thinking about what would happen if the UK voted to leave the EU and what the decision would mean for this policy area.
It is difficult to draw a clear conclusion until we know the terms of our exit, but it is vital that we have an assurance today that EU environmental legislation will be maintained in its entirety so that we have a semblance of stability and breathing space while we develop our own mechanisms and expertise. There are concerns that a full transfer post-Brexit may not be practical, that much of the transfer of directives might be done with little scrutiny through secondary legislation and that this may lead to the weakening of directives. I hope that the Minister, when she arrives, can tell me how she will ensure that that does not happen.
We need to know how we will update legislation and ensure progress. We need a commitment from the Minister that, as an absolute minimum, existing levels of protection for species, habitats and the wider environment will be maintained, and will not be weakened in the longer term through our inability to update legislation or through a lack of enforcement controls.
Richard Benwell of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust reminded me that:
“EU law is not some static monolith with commandments set in stone, it is an evolving regime brought to life by shared objectives and the rulings of the European courts. Without the trajectory provided by the Commission and the accountability provided by the courts, there is a risk that EU legislation becomes out-dated and unenforced, a kind of ‘zombie legislation.’”
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me how we are going to enforce legislation. The EU’s mechanisms of oversight, accountability and enforcement ensure that robust implementation and monitoring take place. What will be the legal recourse for those concerned about the loss of important habitats and species? Judicial review is costly and out of the reach of most citizens and non-governmental organisations. Brexit means that we will lose two key accountability mechanisms: the European Court of Justice and the European Commission. What will we replace them with? What will fill that vacuum? We need a commitment that any future changes to this legislation will be subject to robust scrutiny and debate, with provisions for legal challenge to ensure that there is no attempt to roll back environmental protection.
How are we going to fulfil our international obligations? Brexit will not change our obligations such as those under the Bern, Rio and Ramsar conventions, yet once we leave the EU we will not have the support that membership offers in relation to those agreements. How will we meet them? How will we avoid fragmentation in the UK? What plans does the Minister have to quickly develop common values with the devolved Administrations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned? Much of our environmental policy is entirely devolved. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds argues that transferring EU legislation will require changes to the Scotland Act 1998. We need to know whether the Minister is prepared for that.
Where will the needed capacity and technical and scientific skills come from? The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has noted:
“The Department’s…resource spend over the last Parliament includes cuts of £254 million… Defra’s main resource budget will reduce in 2015-16 by £135 million, or by 7%”.
The 2015 spending review announced that that budget will be reduced by a further 15% over the next few years. The Minister needs to tell us how we are going to replace the range of technical and scientific capacity and skills that will be lost when EU expertise is no longer accessible. Will any of the promised battle bus money come to DEFRA?
Local authorities are at the forefront of environmental protection, given their key role in deciding planning applications. Research commissioned in 2012 by DEFRA established that good outcomes for biodiversity are most likely to be obtained when expert ecological advice is available to the local planning authority.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
As the hon. Lady may be aware, I have joined a big campaign for the future of hedgehogs, numbers of which have unfortunately declined by about 50% over the last 15 years. It would be useful if local authorities had policies to ensure that they have hedgehog superhighways.
Mrs Moon
I will come to that eventually, if the hon. Gentleman gives me a little time.
I was discussing making expert ecological advice available to local planning authorities to enable them to develop sufficient ecological information and understand it when considering planning applications. Local authority ecologists currently play a vital part in the process, helping to guide developers towards sustainable solutions that enable development and protect our most valuable natural assets. In the post-Brexit environment, how well equipped will local authorities be to provide expert advice on the natural environment? Not terribly well, particularly given the dire situation that has developed over the past few years.
The Association of Local Government Ecologists, aptly called ALGE, found as far back as 2011 that only 35% of local authorities in England employed an ecologist; perhaps that is why we do not have hedgehog superhighways. ALGE’s conclusion was that
“local government’s capacity to assist in the delivery of a wide range of biodiversity initiatives”,
such as hedgehog superhighways,
“is already limited and is being further eroded”.
ALGE sounded a warning bell, pessimistically concluding that if the capacity of local authorities was in such a state in 2011, the unrelenting pressure on local government budgets would not give the situation any chance to improve.
Local environmental audits are essential if planners are to know how to manage favourable conservation status legislation, which was designed to protect at-risk species such as great crested newts and bats. Environmental audits are essential. If we do not understand the local populations of such species, it can result in overcompensation in planning decision making. Will environmental impact assessments become irrelevant if we do not adapt and update them, as would happen if we were in the EU?
Does the Minister know how many local planning authorities now have access to their own ecological expertise? Are the Government able to review whether capacity is currently adequate and consider what improvements within the system might be achieved if more LPAs had access to their own expertise? How much more effectively could the Government aims and objectives set out in the 2011 natural environment White Paper “The natural choice” be achieved with just a modest increase in ecological resources within local government? I hope that the Minister will assure us that DEFRA’s proposed new 25-year environmental plan will give true recognition and resources to support the important role that local authorities can play within this vital new initiative.
We need to know who will be responsible for dealing with legislation, regulations and concerns raised by industrial chemicals and pesticides. At present, we follow EU-wide regulations that protect human health and the environment from dangerous chemicals. The vast majority of our expertise in chemicals and pesticides is based in the EU. Can we replace it? Can we afford to? We are already facing a scientific brain drain thanks to Brexit. Does the Minister have a plan to recruit the skills, expertise and competencies that her Department needs?
In February 2013, the Government published the UK national action plan for pesticide use, to fulfil a requirement under the EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. It is another example of the UK’s half-hearted response to environmental legislation. Buglife stated:
“The plan lacks ambition and fails to set out a clear direction for achieving sustainable use of pesticides and preventing damage to pollinator populations.”
Who cares? We all do; we all must. Wild pollinators in the UK include 250 species of bumblebees and other bees, 2,600 species of butterflies and moths, and 7,010 species of flies and various other insects such as beetles, wasps and thrips. Some 84% of crops and 80% of wild flowers rely on pollinators; they are worth a minimum of £430 million a year to the UK economy. How will we influence EU pollination action plans? In the 2016 national pollinator strategy, the Government promised £691 million for agriculture to support the plan. When will the funding start, and how long will it last?
What will we do about invasive species? Currently, we deal with them at EU level. We often work with Ireland in adding new species to the list; how will we move that forward? How will we comply with ESTA, the European seed treatment assurance scheme? To quote the industry:
“Any serious incident in an individual member state could again lead to product withdrawal. In addition, there is a need to ensure free movement of treated seed across the Community unhampered by individual Member state legislation.”
After Brexit, it will not be possible for the UK to develop UK-only seeds. On fisheries, we might be able to set quotas, but we will not be able to influence EU quotas. Does the Minister know what British waters will consist of? Will it be 12 or 200 miles? How will we ensure that stocks are not put under pressure?
Non-governmental organisations and their volunteers already plug major gaps. An estimated 7.5 million hours are given to species monitoring each year. NGOs are reporting being approached by local government to take over responsibility for managing local nature reserves and even national nature reserves. NGOs currently employ much of the UK’s environmental and scientific expertise. Will the Minister pledge to work with those NGOs in agreeing a way forward?
Why is any of this important? The “State of Nature” report findings show that in the UK alone, 10% of species are at risk of extinction and nearly 60% have declined since 1970. We face increasing problems of air and water pollution. The focus in the Brexit debate to date has been on the economy. Whatever “Brexit means Brexit” means, it does not mean habitat and species loss, more air, chemical pesticide and water pollution or more invasive species. Does the Minister have a plan, and when will she share it with us?
Finally, I have been asked to make a personal plea from Mr Stanley Johnson, one of the authors of the EU habitats directive. He is especially keen on continued UK participation in the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. I agree totally, and I hope that the Minister will include that in whatever plans she outlines to us in her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I apologise to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and to the House for my discourtesy in arriving late. Unfortunately, something happened en route. I will send my apologies personally.
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Lady for those kind words. She has chosen an exceptionally important topic for discussion. I am grateful to her for sharing some of the themes of her speech in advance, so that we can give her as comprehensive an answer as possible. A lot of this is still in formulation, but I am conscious that the questions and issues that she raised will be absolutely central to some of the answers that we hope to find as we develop our route out of the European Union. I hope that she will continue to take an interest in this topic over the next few years. On our exit from the European Union, she asked how European legislation would be transferred into national legislation, and what the implications were for nature conservation. She also asked specific detailed questions.
I reiterate from the outset our absolute commitment to delivering on our manifesto promise to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. Even before the EU referendum, work had started on developing our 25-year environment plan to deliver against that target, building on our 2011 natural environment White Paper.
I fully recognise the importance of devolved policy in this area, and as the hon. Lady represents a Welsh constituency, I cannot be entirely specific about the situation directly affecting her constituents. Instead, I will develop more broadly the argument about the UK Government’s role in leading the work to exit the European Union; I will also refer to some of our plans in England. We have been able to increase spending in the past five or six years, and any decisions we make in the future to increase expenditure will result in changes that the Welsh Government will be able to take advantage of to continue to enhance the wonderful environment across our country.
Understandably, the decision to leave the European Union has raised questions about what might change, and what leaving might mean for the environment. The Government are well aware of the desire for certainty about what Brexit means for our environmental policy and legislative framework. The Prime Minister recently announced our plans for the great repeal Bill, which will not repeal all the protections given to the environment over many years—there are protections that predate our joining the EU, by the way—but will repeal the European Communities Act 1972. The Bill will be specifically about how we take European law into British law—whether that is Scots law, English and Welsh law, or the legislative framework for Northern Ireland—and will ensure that, the day after we leave, we still have an enforceable legislative framework, and that the environmental protections that we take for granted will continue.
Without prejudging our future relationship with the EU or future decisions of Parliament, I want to provide as much certainty as possible about the fact that we expect existing laws to be applicable. A smooth and orderly exit is in the interests of both the UK and our EU partners. There are decades of EU law to consider, and about a quarter of EU legislation affecting the United Kingdom affects the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We want to ensure that the statute book works on exit, and that we provide the maximum possible stability. We will engage widely, including with Parliament and the devolved Administrations, on the plan to ensure that when EU law ceases to apply, it is converted into domestic law. All Departments are reviewing the EU laws that apply in their policy areas and how withdrawal from the EU will affect their operation. Some elements of EU law are directives, which have to be transposed into UK law, and others are regulations. We need to ensure that no gaps are left.
I stress the considerable technical expertise to which all devolved Administrations have access. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee advises the UK on nature conservation, and the Health and Safety Executive advises on pesticides and chemicals; I see both organisations playing an important role, especially in regard to the hon. Lady’s concern about keeping the integrity of the United Kingdom. While we may be leaving the European Union, we are keeping the United Kingdom, and we know that the environment does not stop at the border.
As the Prime Minister has signalled, we will no longer be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It will be the role of Parliament to hold the Government to account, along with mechanisms such as judicial review, though I recognise that that is costly, as the hon. Lady said. Understandably, people talk about the role of the European Commission and the ECJ, but their procedures still require people to initiate them. There are non-governmental organisations that are certainly not shy about taking the Government to court on certain matters, but at the moment, they can also use the avenue of the European Commission to do that.
The decision to leave the EU means that we have quite an exciting opportunity to design a set of environmental policies linked to the UK’s needs in the context of the 25-year environment plan. The hon. Lady and I were both remain campaigners and voters, but leaving the European Union will allow us, in due course, to consider whether the prescriptive nature of some of the current directives is the best way to achieve the outcomes we want. A phrase I often use nowadays is “cling to nurse for fear of worse”. Sometimes it felt as if that was the theme on which the remain campaign was based, but the phrase also sums up how people have clung to directives instead of thinking beyond them, saying, “We know that there are directives that are no longer fit for purpose, but there is no appetite to change them.” We want to ensure that any changes in the law are subject to appropriate scrutiny and debate.
The hon. Lady raised a number of detailed points about matters that are still being worked through. It would not be right for me to provide a running commentary, because there is no commentary; the options are still being worked through. She referred to the UK’s international commitments. A lot of European legislation is arrived at by multilateral agreements to which we have already signed up. We will certainly continue to honour our multilateral environmental agreements, which have been reached as a result of global action on environmental protection. We will continue to work closely with our European and international partners to improve the environment.
I stress that this area is a shared competence. Take plastic bags; the Welsh were the first to take action, and England eventually followed. That issue was being discussed just yesterday at the European Council in Luxembourg, and I was able to say, “The United Kingdom has already taken unilateral action on this, and other countries can do that if they wish—they do not need to wait for the EU to legislate on it.” Well done, Wales, for showing the way.
Marine conservation zones are another example. We have created our own designations, so we do not entirely need to rely on Natura 2000 and other elements. Some of those sites are already in place anyway because of international agreements, but we need to work through the designation framework for sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding national beauty. Our recently launched national parks plan is a good example of good practice: it continues to outline and enhance the protections we will have, as well as encouraging children to connect with nature.
We have all sorts of unilateral initiatives; I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome, and will contribute to, our consultation on banning the sale and manufacture of personal care and cosmetic products with microbeads. We recognise her point about the “State of Nature” report, and we want to ensure that the environment will be at the heart of any future replacement we design for the common agricultural policy. As she says, there has been a decline in species; we are determined to restore them. We have certainly seen some changes over recent decades, and we need to address them now. As I say, the environment plan and the framework, which I really hope will be published soon, will be a good opportunity to contribute to how we deliver that. I recognise that the environment plan is for England, but I am sure that other nations of our United Kingdom may wish to consider it.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady asks whether it is joined. I am sure that we will not be violently misaligned, but as I said at the start, this is a devolved matter, so we cannot dictate our policy to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, though I am sure that they will watch our plans with interest.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of invasive non-native species. The UK has long been the leading player on that issue within the European Union. The recent EU regulation was based heavily on our strategy for this country, which in turn is based on international principles acknowledged by the convention on biological diversity. We are committed to continuing that approach.
On funding via the national pollinator programme, the countryside stewardship agreements in the pipeline are now guaranteed. The Chancellor has also stated that new rural development programme projects signed after the statement will be funded, as long as they are good value for money. On local planning authorities, I take the hon. Lady’s point that only about a third of councils employed an ecologist. People can buy in the resource, and they do, but I recognise her point.
Dr Coffey
I do not have time, I am afraid.
The hon. Member for Bridgend will also want to know about trialling a more strategic approach to great crested newts in Woking, which should result in an overall net benefit to the population and to planning restrictions. I will write to her about the fisheries policy. In conclusion, I appreciate her patience, and assure her that we will continue to engage with the public and stakeholders.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Type 26 Frigates: Clyde
(8 years, 1 month 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 Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Before we move on to the important topic of Type 22 frigates on the Clyde, will Members who do not wish to attend the debate please leave quickly and quietly?
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the timetable for building Type 26 frigates on the Clyde.
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, but for the record this debate is on Type 26 frigates.
Talk of defence platforms can often be a dry business, and it passes by most people in this House, never mind among the public. That is not true of the Type 26. The interest we see among Members today in the global combat ship reflects not only its strategic utility and world-class design; the farrago of delays and under-investment in the project and broken promises from the Ministry of Defence reveal the malaise at the heart of the United Kingdom’s strategic thinking, which sees preserving the shop window as more important than its most basic of roles: defending this political state adequately.
I would like the Minister to address with utmost sincerity—something that her Department has been unable to do up to this point—two principal points on the Type 26 project. First, in delaying the start of the project, the Minister and her Department are doing enormous damage to the defence of Scotland and the United Kingdom, which, as I mentioned, is one of the Government’s most solemn and fundamental tasks. Secondly, the failure to cut steel on the vessels, alongside an ongoing refusal to fulfil the promise of a frigate factory on the Clyde, is placing enormous pressure on the complex warship-building capacity that Government have unequivocally promised to protect, causing undeniable financial harm and insecurity to the thousands of skilled and dedicated workers from along the Clyde who are feeling increasingly let down.
In short, behind the broken promises and procrastination, the MOD has proven beyond doubt one maxim put forward by myself and Scottish National party colleagues time and again: every penny spent on the abomination that is Trident is a penny less spent on conventional defence.
In beginning to pick apart the sorry saga of the Type 26, one has to start somewhere, and I choose to start with the Royal Navy taskforce that sailed to recapture the Falkland Islands in 1982. That taskforce was composed of some 23 frigates and destroyers; today, the entire Royal Navy boasts only 19 frigates and destroyers, of which all are based between Her Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth and Her Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport. Paradoxically, that leaves the United Kingdom’s southern coast as its most northerly complex warship base.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the submarines are based up in Scotland? They are coming, in the main, away from Devonport, and we are still responsible for the refitting and refuelling of the nuclear submarines.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The last time I looked we were discussing the construction of naval vessels, not the basing of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, I am delighted that the Conservative party wants to engage in a strategic look at shipbuilding, because Conservative Members were recently in this very Chamber talking about rebuilding the royal yacht Britannia. While they are away and on into the distance with their pith helmets, the rest of us are left behind with the catastrophe that is Brexit, which I will pick up on later. They can go on to the distance in Britannia.
The capability gap is felt most keenly in Scotland. The northern third of this island, with a coastline longer than that of France and direct access to both the North sea and the Icelandic gap, is left dangerously under-defended at a time when Russian Federation incursions into our territorial waters are beginning to reach cold war levels. The perfect example came in January 2014, when the Russian carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov “took shelter” in the Moray firth. It took the United Kingdom’s fleet ready escort 24 hours to reach the carrier group before it went on its way—although not before dumping its waste in the firth.
The House may have read the recent reports of the Kuznetsov’s imminent return to the waters of the North sea. The carrier group left the port of Severomorsk on Sunday and is expected to make its way towards assisting Russia’s continuing destruction of Aleppo via the North sea and English channel.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
A headline in the Norwegian press this week says: “Russia’s biggest warships steam along coast of Norway towards Syria”, just as my hon. Friend has described. The related article says:
“Norway has a frigate, Coast Guard vessels and Orion surveillance aircrafts that have all followed the Russian navy group since it sailed out from the Kola Peninsula into the Barents Sea on Saturday.”
Does he agree that that is a substantial contribution from Norway, and one that the UK would struggle to match?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. That small northern European nation seems far more capable of defending its territorial waters and meetings its obligations to NATO than the United Kingdom.
Amazingly, despite long-standing knowledge of the Kuznetsov’s deployment, and it coming as NATO’s largest annual exercise is taking place in Scotland, the Government have been able to rustle up only one Type 23 frigate and one Type 45 destroyer to escort the carrier group through the UK’s exclusive economic zone, meaning that were the group to split, there would be no way of keeping tabs on the largest ships in the Russian navy. Quite simply, the ageing Type 23 fleet cannot keep pace with the growing number of tasks put forward for it. The understandable challenges of dealing with a 35-year-old platform have led to worrying gaps in the Royal Navy’s most basic capabilities, whether that is the designated fleet ready escort being neither a frigate nor a destroyer, or the frequent and worrying absence of a UK vessel from the NATO standing maritime group in the north Atlantic.
The Government’s contention that a smaller fleet can be justified by increasing versatility can be met only by proceeding with the Type 26 programme. These are highly capable, versatile, multi-mission warships that would give the Royal Navy the capabilities it needs. Talk about the United Kingdom offering NATO a world-class anti-submarine warfare capability sounds hollow when we do not invest in the primary platform to undertake that, and when investment in other platforms—whether that is the carriers or the Poseidon P-8 maritime patrol aircraft—is called into question because a fundamental part of their support network has been put at risk.
When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope to hear a real commitment to a timetable for cutting steel on the ships, as well as their expected in-service dates.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the delay in giving such a guarantee is an utter betrayal of the workers on the Clyde? It really calls into question both the UK Government’s commitment to conventional defence capability in Scotland and where their priorities truly lie.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
To the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I certainly will.
Bob Stewart
Is it the Scottish National party’s policy to increase defence spending to something that in my view would be reasonable: 3% of gross national income? That way, we could provide more Type 26s, Type 23s and Type 45s.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I have great respect for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but if we get rid of Trident we might actually be able to cover that.
In introducing this debate, I not only raise to a wider audience my own concerns about the continuing delays to the project, but echo the concerns of the Defence Committee and many prominent former senior Royal Navy officers. When the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Lord West, appeared before the Defence Committee at the start of June, the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) was that the Ministry of Defence had run out of money for these ships. We were never really given an acceptable answer from the Minister’s Department. Indeed, Admiral Lord West pre-empted the MOD response by expressing the opinion that any contention by the MOD that the problems were principally with the design would be “economical with the actualité”.
Today I will go even further than Lord West and ask the Minister specifically to address the concerns that have been put to me that the scandal of the lack of any timetable for construction of the Type 26 actually masks a wider problem of a continuing lack of investment in the Clyde yards, putting their long-term future at risk and jeopardising the jobs and skills of thousands of workers at Govan and Scotstoun.
In the lead-up to the announcement of the plans for the Type 26 programme, the workers at those two yards were offered a clear quid pro quo. There would be a significant restructuring in the workforce, including job losses, but that would be offset by investments that would guarantee jobs for a generation. At the height of the referendum on Scottish independence, the Minister’s Department explicitly tied that investment to the no vote. There would be 13 Type 26 frigates built on the Clyde, in a brand new “frigate factory”, to protect the workers from the west of Scotland’s rather inclement weather.
When we heard last November in the strategic defence and security review that the number of Type 26s being built would be reduced still further, trade unions told my Scottish National party colleagues—and others, I am sure—that that was not a huge concern, because the infrastructure investment for building the Type 26 would ensure that the new general-purpose frigate would also be built on the Clyde. So the Clyde waited—and waited, and waited—until the planned date for the cutting of steel came and went, until it emerged that there was a £750 million gap in infrastructure investment and until it became clear that the UK Government were rubber-earing our questions about the GPFF being built on the Clyde.
This is a tale of underinvestment and neglect, and I can relate to it. Perhaps—just perhaps—this is a deliberate Tory strategy, and one that has form on the Clyde. The Minister may not remember the names of former Ministers; on these Benches, we will not forget one: that of Nicholas Ridley. When Jimmy Reid, the late patriot, presented the Ridley letters, which were written in 1969, to the Scottish Trade Union Congress, they proved that the Tory Government had outrageously planned the closure of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. By their inaction, this Government are following a well-trodden path in this regard. The Tories are making a political decision, rather than a strategic one.
In the context of current naval investment, the delay in building these vessels could be seen as excusable if there was an understanding that the ministerial promises to the highly skilled and dedicated workforce of these yards would be upheld. The fact is that these workers and my colleagues are all listening with increasing concern to the Government’s deafening silence on the subject of the GPFF, and although we appreciate that there is a shipbuilding strategy to come in November, the MOD must at least give reassurances before then.
However, even as workers on the Clyde work outside in all weathers, the Government have not been slow in coming through with investment elsewhere. In Barrow, those workers who are working on the multi-billion pound Successor programme to Trident are being kept dry by the Government investment there, which includes an indoor assembly hall. There could be no better illustration of my contention that every penny spent on Trident is a penny less spent on conventional defence. Trident costs have not always been part of the MOD budget, but now that they are, the Government’s intention to ring-fence the MOD budget and other budgets has led us to this inescapable conclusion.
It may not come as a surprise to hear that me say that, as I am a member of the Scottish National party, but I am echoing the assessment made by General Sir Richard Shirref in front of the Defence Committee last year, and the assessment of General Sir Richard Barrons, which was revealed in the Financial Times in September. Vital capabilities such as the Type 26 have been “withered by design”, as a result of the MOD priorities that place unusable weapons of mass destruction above the defence of the state. “Preserving the shop window” means workers on the Clyde worry about their job security as vital infrastructure investment is kept to a bare minimum.
I will end my opening speech by reiterating the two questions that I hope the Minister will address. First, how will the UK Government address the worrying gaps in national security caused by the ongoing failure of the MOD to build the Type 26 on time? Secondly, will the Minister give the workers of the Clyde a timetable for construction of the Type 26 and address their concerns about the total and complete lack of investment in infrastructure to support the GPFF, which would guarantee their job security beyond the medium term? I await the Minister’s answer; they await the Minister’s answer.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The guideline for Front-Bench responses is five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Therefore, I will call the Front-Bench spokespersons no later than 5.07 pm. Mr Docherty-Hughes will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the very end. The time between now and 5.07 pm is for Back Benchers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Hollobone.
First, I thank the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for setting the scene, and for expressing his concerns, needs and wishes regarding shipbuilding in his own constituency and across Scotland. These issues are very important for us all—each and every one of us. I declare an interest, as I am a Member of the Defence Committee, as indeed are a significant number of the Members who are here in Westminster Hall today.
It is a pleasure to speak on an issue that is of great interest. Indeed, the Defence Committee is holding an inquiry on naval procurement, including the procurement of the Type 26s, as it really is a matter of great importance.
The hon. Gentleman outlined the importance of the construction of the Type 26 for jobs first of all, but also for the security of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I always say, and I say again now, we are better together. It is a real pleasure to speak on this issue and to put that marker down as well. I am very fond of my colleagues from the Scottish National party who surround me; I look upon them as friends and it is good to come along and contribute to a debate that interests them, interests me and interests this House.
There is a reason why we are world-renowned for our Navy—it is because we get the best. To get the best, we must put in the best, as well, and ensure that the Navy’s equipment is up to date and, more importantly, up to scratch. The Government plan to spend some £19 billion over the next decade on surface ships for the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service. On page four of the Library briefing for this debate—I commend the background guys for the work that they have done; the information in the briefing is excellent—it says:
“The Strategy is intended to place UK warship shipbuilding on a sustainable longterm footing”.
That was said by a Defence Minister, Earl Howe, in September.
In November 2014, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who was the Minister responsible for defence procurement at the time—by the way, he was an excellent Minister and the meetings we had with him were always very positive and helpful—said that complex warships for the Royal Navy were only built in UK shipyards.
There is also a particular comment in the Library briefing that I love, namely, that we must maintain
“a ‘steady drum-beat’ of orders”,
which the Library briefing says
“is often mentioned by those following the Navy’s acquisition programme.”
Those are some of the comments that I have taken from the Library briefing.
A substantial portion of this planned work will be for the Navy’s new fleet of frigates. The remainder is divided between money that has already been committed to completing the new aircraft carriers, offshore patrol vessels and tanker ships, and maintenance and support for in-service equipment. Clearly, there is a commitment to the British fleet and to the Royal Navy, and we want to make sure that that continues. It is my desire, and it was the desire of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Ludlow, to see the new British fleet built in Britain. As we have said, we are marching to the steady drumbeat of orders, and that must be the way we move.
We are renowned in Northern Ireland for shipbuilding, through Harland and Wolff. Many Members will know that; I am not sure where those who do not know it have been living. I have heard many jokes about the Titanic, and all I have to say is this: it was fine when it left Belfast. Joking aside, we have the ability within the United Kingdom to build our own fleet, and that must be a priority. We must ensure that the Royal Navy’s replacement of the current 13-strong frigate fleet, which will begin to leave service in 2023, is manufactured on our shores. We need that commitment, and I believe that the Minister will give us it—I wait eagerly for her response and I thank her for being here.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It has been nice to hear that shipbuilding is important not only to Scotland but to Northern Ireland, England and Wales. In my constituency, I have David Brown Gear Systems Ltd. The company used to make tractors and owned Aston Martin—the DB9—and it now makes the gears for propulsion systems. I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that the matter covers all elements of our United Kingdom shipbuilding and, like him, I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the wonderful Type 26.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly underlining the great experience and talent we have across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in building, creating and manufacturing things that can be to our benefit.
Oliver Colvile
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although the Titanic may have left from his province, the passengers came back to Plymouth? We in Devonport are really looking forward to welcoming the Type 26s if, as we hope, they are base-ported down in Plymouth.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has a passion for the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I know that from his interventions in discussions and from the comments he makes.
I am given to understand that there is a delay with the frigate fleet, but we must not and cannot cut the number of Type 26 frigates and opt for a new, cheaper, general purpose frigate. Will the Minister confirm that we will have the frigate we wish to have and not a cheaper one? I return to my original point—to be the best we must have the best. We have an industry that can and will make the ships to the highest of standards, to keep our Royal Navy in a position where it is effective and ready, and we have an industry that is crying out for the work. Those two needs can and should go hand in hand. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said, we have a high quality of workmanship across the whole of the United Kingdom.
I would of course wish for Harland and Wolff to have its share of any work that can be carried out. That is natural, having grown up as I did, with men around me going to the shipyard for their day’s work. I can remember as a boy—and that was not yesterday—many people from my constituency going to Harland and Wolff. The manufacturing base we had in Northern Ireland was certainly one of the best. However, what is most important for me is that the ships are built to meet the needs of the Royal Navy and that they are not pared back to suit cost analysing.
I have spoken out often—some may say loudly on occasion—against the paring back of any of our armed forces, and many in this Chamber do likewise. We should be under no illusion: the Royal Navy provides us with a security that is as necessary today as it ever has been. In the armed forces all-party group we go to dinners and hear speeches on behalf of the Royal Navy and we are always impressed by what we see and hear and by the efficient, modern, up-to-scratch Royal Navy that can combat any in the world. As a nation that might not be labelled as “at war” but is certainly instrumental in international peacekeeping, it is essential that we look to our future and ensure that we have a Navy that can defend as well in 20 years’ time as it can now.
I again thank the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire for raising the issue. Although I understand—I may have got it wrong—that he is putting down the marker for where ships are made, I am putting down the marker to ensure that they are, in fact, made, and to the specifications that are needed. Although we want to keep shipbuilders busy, that is not why the order was placed. It was placed because we need the frigates—it as simple as that. That was determined in 2010 and, if anything, our need for an up-to-date and modern Navy has only intensified since then. Let us keep the shipbuilders in business by ensuring that everything is built on our shores but, more importantly, let us keep our shipbuilders and shores safe by giving the Royal Navy the tools that are needed to do that. The well-known saying, “You get what you pay for”, has merit; we need the best and it needs to be paid for. Let us ensure that the autumn statement reflects that need and the action that must be taken.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that she can convince us all and give us the confidence that the Type 26 frigates are the ones that will be here for the future. If that is the case, this will have been a good debate.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As the Member who has the privilege of representing the Govan shipyards, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing it.
There remain a number of questions to be asked this afternoon, but possibly the simplest one can best be described as: does eight plus five equal 13? That is important, in understanding the history of where we are. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire highlighted, the history started before the independence referendum, with promises of 13 Type 26 frigates. Last November, at the strategic defence and security review, we were given the assurance: “It’s okay. There won’t be 13 Type 26 frigates; there’ll be eight Type 26 frigates and five light, general purpose ones.” There is nothing to worry about, was the message given to the workforce on the Clyde. I ask that simple question because I know that the workforce on the Clyde and the trade unions are frustrated by and worried about the delays in the timetable for the Type 26. The original date for cutting steel was May 2016; it would be useful if the Minister could give reasons for the delay in the procurement. Despite 15 written questions, I have received no meaningful answers.
Bob Stewart
I do not think we need the Minister to answer that. The answer is that we had no money; that is why we had to cut down the number of Type 26 ships. [Interruption.] We did not have the money, and we have to cut our coat to suit our cloth.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman may say that, and I may come on to that point, but the Government have never confirmed that that is the reason for the delay, and it would be useful if they were to say that today. If he is correct that there was a lack of money, I am sure that there are Committees and hon. Members in the House who would want to ask what happened with the money.
Lord West suggested to the Defence Committee that the defence budget for shipbuilding was spent. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), he said:
“Shall I tell you what the problem is? Notwithstanding having said how much extra money there is for defence, in the near years there is not. There is almost no extra money available this year, and we are really strapped next year. The Government aren’t coming clean about that. I think if they did, people would understand.”
In answer to further questions, he outlined that delays can be costly in the long run. In response to the Chair of the Committee, he said:
“Every delay costs you money. These delays all cost money. You need a steady drumbeat of orders to keep high-tech industries going. Our complex surface warship building industry, like the submarine one, needs a steady drumbeat of orders.”
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the drumbeat and the starting point for the project. Is it not one of the key concerns that, even when the project starts, if the drumbeat is extended and the length of time for the completion of each ship is extended, by the nature of that equation, fewer workers will be needed?
Chris Stephens
That concern is felt not only by my hon. Friends, but by me and, crucially, the trade unions and workforce on the Clyde. What economic impact assessment has been carried out on delaying the Type 26 frigates? We know from an excellent report by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which was commissioned by GMB Scotland, that the two BAE yards at Govan and Scotstoun directly employ a total of 2,723 people. More than 1,000 of them, men and women, are skilled tradespersons. I am delighted that there has been an increase in women apprentices and women workers highly involved in high-tech industry. The report estimates that the two yards in Glasgow support a total of 5,943 jobs and, through that, £162.7 million of wages across Scotland as a whole. Returning to my original “eight plus five” question, will the Minister confirm whether the general purpose frigates will also be built on the Clyde, as confirmed by the former Prime Minister in the strategic defence and security review in November 2015?
We know that a national shipbuilding strategy will be announced soon. I am looking forward to that, when it comes, but I reiterate that we should not underestimate the frustrations of the workforce. They want to build ships. They want a long-term future for the Clyde that will begin with cutting steel for Type 26 frigates. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on securing this important debate, and I echo his call for the UK Government to come clean on when work will start on the Type 26 programme. He put forward the compelling case that what we are witnessing has all the hallmarks of another sorry tale of under-investment, neglect and broken promises to workers on the Clyde.
The workers on the Clyde have no better champion than my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and he was absolutely correct when he pointed out that in the run-up to the 2014 referendum on independence, we were promised that if we remained within the United Kingdom, there would be 13 new Type 26 frigates. That was unequivocal. That was the figure we were told. However, fast-forward barely a year, and in the 2015 SDSR, that figure was reduced to eight, alongside a vague, unwritten promise of five light frigates.
Steven Paterson
To back up my hon. Friend, I have a leaflet that was put around by the Labour party during the referendum campaign. It states, unequivocally:
“Within the UK Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy.”
What does he make of that?
Brendan O'Hara
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is one of many broken promises that I am sure will not be forgotten.
Brendan O'Hara
I will. I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene on this point.
Ian Murray
I am sorry that the cross-party consensus on such an important issue has been so inelegantly broken, but will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many frigates would have been built had people voted yes in 2014?
Brendan O'Hara
Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place at the start of the debate, he would have seen that there was cross-party consensus. We were being very consensual. The Scottish people and the Scottish workforce have been betrayed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman would do well to focus on the Government and their betrayal, rather than attacking people who are defending Scottish workers.
With the old Type 23 frigates being withdrawn from service in 2023, the Type 26 programme had to start in early 2015, but the manufacturing of the eight ships will now not begin until the summer of 2017 at the earliest, with at least one union convener saying that it will not begin until 2018. That is a delay of at least two years, and possibly three. As we have heard, the lesson from all defence procurement deals is that if there are delays, costs will always increase.
What is the reason for the delay? Is it that the Government think that we no longer need Type 26s? That is not the case. As Peter Roberts, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Service Institute, said, the Government are talking about
“a level of Russian submarine activity that we have not seen since the 1980s…That poses a significant threat for the UK”.
If the delay is not on the grounds of national security, and it is not a strategic decision, it can only be based on cost. Perhaps Lord West of Spithead, the former First Sea Lord, was absolutely right when he said that
“there is not enough money in the MOD”
to start construction. He said that before Brexit, and he could say it with bells on now.
Despite the Minister’s protestations that the
“national shipbuilding strategy…is not something that is affected by the outcome of the referendum”,
we all know that if prices are denominated in dollars, costs will soar.
When the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House on 27 June—the first day the House sat after the EU referendum—he said that he was
“not prepared to sign a contract with BAE Systems until I am absolutely persuaded that it is in the best interests of the taxpayer”.—[Official Report, 12 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 592.]
Are we to assume that that was mere coincidence? The hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) got it absolutely right when he said that the project has been delayed because the Government have run out of money. They have run out of money because they have committed far too much of their procurement budget to Trident. It would be an unforgivable betrayal of the Clyde workers if they were the ones who had to pay not only the price of Brexit, but the price of Trident, which has been ring-fenced within defence procurement. Once again, it appears that the Government are prepared to sacrifice our conventional defence capabilities to their obsession with Trident and nuclear weapons. I look forward to the Minister letting me know about that.
If there is not a lack of will and there is sufficient money, prove us wrong and give us a start date. The workers on the Clyde have had far too many broken promises. An important supply chain is at risk in the defence manufacturing sector. We need confirmation that the five general purpose frigates will also be built on the Clyde. I would appreciate it if the Minister addressed that point in her remarks. The work needs to start now. The workers on the Clyde have been betrayed too often. Will the Minister break that chain of betrayal and let-down? Give us a date for when work on the Type 26 programme will start.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It has been said that confusion and muddle have been the hallmark of the Government’s approach towards naval shipbuilding in recent years. Nowhere is that lack of clarity more in evidence than when it comes to the construction of frigates.
The Navy has 13 Type 23 frigates. As we have heard, there was a strong suggestion in the 2010 strategic defence and security review that 13 Type 26 frigates should be constructed in place of those 13 Type 23 frigates. We were told that manufacturing of those new frigates would begin in 2015-16, but the 2015 SDSR cut the number from 13 to eight. At that time, the Government gave a weak commitment to building at least five new general purpose frigates, possibly more. They have yet to agree a manufacturing date with BAE Systems for the Type 26 frigates, and the demonstration phase on those frigates was extended in March 2016 by a further year. At the same time, BAE Systems has been building three offshore patrol vessels, and the Government plan to have two more of those. That general factual background leads to a number of key questions that have been touched on in the debate, and that I want to underline.
First, with regard to timescale, if the Government do not give the go-ahead and the date for the cutting of steel is not before summer next year, the production trades will have almost finished manufacturing work on those offshore patrol vessel programmes, and will have no work to carry on with. In other words, there will be a hiatus. The trade skills that are required for the construction of the offshore patrol vessels will be lost and will not be able to be deployed other than at significant cost, with more delays and more training. It is important that the Government come clean; they must have some idea of the start date, and I hope that the Minister will tell us when that will be.
The second question is again on the issue of skills and the dovetailing that will be necessary between the Type 26 programme and the programme for the general purpose frigates. The trade unions have pointed out that as the Type 26 programme design phase is decreasing, the ship designers will need another programme to work on, so we need specifics from the Government on the general purpose frigate programme as well. What is the Government’s intention in that regard?
Thirdly, we have already seen delay—hopefully there will not be more—but what does that mean for the existing Type 23 frigates? The Government have said that there is to be no extension of their lifespan. Is that still the case? I have been told that the Type 23 frigates have already exceeded their original design life. If they are kept in service, there are implications for the Navy, in terms of fulfilling the requirements that those frigates meet.
The final question is on cost, and clarity would be desirable here. As we have heard, there have been suggestions that because of the Government’s continuing austerity programme and the hardening of cuts, it is becoming increasingly expensive for them to make real their previous commitments. Admiral Sir Philip Jones, the First Sea Lord and head of the Navy, suggested that when he told MPs on the Select Committee that one problem is the cost of designing quiet ships; the technology is far more expensive than was originally envisaged. That may or may not be the case, but what is very important, on that and on the other issues raised this afternoon, is that we have clarity and certainty from the Government.
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that delays have an economic impact, and not just on Govan, Scotstoun or Scotland? There is a wider economic impact. If there is a delay, that will mean a more expensive programme in the long run.
Wayne David
Broadly speaking, that is correct. There will certainly be excessive costs if the Type 23 frigates are required to stay in service beyond their natural design life. Also, with most programmes, and certainly with defence procurement programmes, the longer the programmes, the more the delay and the greater the costs. There is also an impact on the workforce, with greater uncertainty and greater job insecurity. On all these issues, what is required is, at the very least, clarity from the Government. I thank the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) very much for bringing forward this issue today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
Let me start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on securing this debate and for providing me with the opportunity to update the House on this important subject.
The 2015 strategic defence and security review restated this Government’s commitment to the Type 26 global combat ship programme. It was a positive strategic defence and security review for the Royal Navy, committing to an increase in the size of the service for the first time in a generation.
There has been a high level of interest in the programme since we announced our plans and I, along with ministerial colleagues, have consistently confirmed the Government’s continuing commitment to it. Let me once again reiterate that commitment. The Type 26 global combat ships remain critical for the Royal Navy and nothing has changed since last year’s strategic defence and security review. We are going ahead with eight anti-submarine warfare ships and all eight ships will be built at the BAE Systems shipyards on the Clyde.
We have backed up our commitment with significant investment as we continue to progress the Type 26 programme. We announced in March this year the award of a contract with BAE Systems, valued at £472 million, to extend the Type 26 demonstration phase to June 2017, enabling us to continue work with industry to develop an optimised schedule for the programme to reflect the outcome of the strategic defence and security review; to mature further the detailed ship design ahead of the start of manufacture; to invest in shore testing facilities; and to extend our investment in the wider supply chain to cover almost all the equipment for the first three ships.
Wayne David
I welcome what the Minister has said, but it is worth pointing out that so far there is nothing new in it. Will she tell us when the manufacturing start date will be?
Harriett Baldwin
I did not say that in updating the House there would necessarily be anything new, but I do want to reiterate the commitments that I have previously made.
The work will benefit suppliers across the country, injecting an estimated £200 million into the UK supply chain and sustaining 1,600 high-quality jobs, an estimated 600 of which—more than a third—are in Scotland. From Loanhead in Midlothian, where the helicopter handling equipment will be built, to Fleet in Hampshire, where communications equipment will be developed; from Dunfermline in Fife, where the steering gear will be built, to Huddersfield in West Yorkshire, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), where the gearboxes will be constructed—this investment is good news for UK industry. Furthermore, we announced in July the latest commitment of £183 million to buy the maritime indirect fires system—the five-inch gun—for the first three ships. That takes our total investment in the Type 26 programme so far to £1.8 billion, which is hard evidence not only of our commitment to the programme but of real progress in delivery.
Chris Stephens
Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), I am guessing that we are not going to get a date for cutting steel this afternoon. Is it the Ministry of Defence’s intention to tell us the expected date for cutting steel on the Clyde before or after the autumn statement?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman is going to get a lot of interesting stuff from me this afternoon, so he will have to sit on the edge of his seat as I speak. I will give the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire three minutes to sum up.
A key focus of this afternoon’s questions has been the timetable for the programme and the building of the ships. The timing of the award of the build contract and the build schedule itself are key components of the ongoing commercial negotiations between the Government and BAE Systems. We are negotiating a deal that aims to optimise the Royal Navy’s requirements, in terms of the capability that the ships will deliver; to achieve value for money for defence and the taxpayer; and to deliver a build schedule that drives performance by industry. Those negotiations are continuing, so I am not in a position to give a specific date for when an agreement will be reached. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, to protect the Ministry of Defence’s commercial interests, disclosing any such detail would be inappropriate at this time.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The Government have given assurances to Lockheed Martin and those working on the F-35s in Fort Worth in America right through to the end of 2030, but they are totally unable to do so to the workforce at BAE Systems in Scotstoun and Govan to the end of this decade. Surely there is a mismatch between their commitment to British workers and their commitment to those in America.
Harriett Baldwin
With the greatest respect, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s statement. We have an incredibly ambitious shipbuilding programme in this country. In Scotland at the moment, we are building the two largest warships that the Royal Navy will ever take delivery of. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain in any way about the ambition of our shipbuilding programme in the Clyde; I do not accept that in any way, shape or form.
I want to touch on the national shipbuilding strategy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others. I hope the assiduous Member for Strangford has had a chance to meet with Sir John Parker, who hails from Northern Ireland, as part of his review. He is a leading authority on naval shipbuilding and was appointed independent chair of the shipbuilding strategy. He will make his recommendations by the time of the autumn statement.
Jim Shannon
The Minister will be aware that Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord of the Navy, attended the Defence Committee. He said that if we do not cut the steel soon, some very old frigates will be protecting brand new carriers and the strategic nuclear deterrent, and he warned that the Navy is in danger of not being able to fulfil all the requirements expected of it. The date is so important—can the Minister give it to us?
Harriett Baldwin
In answers to the House, we have disclosed the out-of-service dates for the existing Type 23 frigates. They are a matter of public record. Clearly, the acquisition of the Type 26 global combat ship will be crucial to the future of the UK’s shipbuilding industry, and will form part of the national shipbuilding strategy. The Type 26 global combat ship will form a key component of the future maritime force, but last year’s strategic defence and security review also considered more widely how it will replace our current in-service frigates.
Hon. Members will be aware that there are currently 13 Type 23 frigates in service with the Royal Navy. The eight Type 26 global combat ships will be built to replace the current eight anti-submarine warfare Type 23 frigates on a one-for-one basis. The capability currently provided by the five general-purpose Type 23 frigates will be met by a new class of light, general-purpose frigate that will, by the 2030s, enable us to increase the overall number of frigates. The programme to take that commitment forward is in its pre-concept phase and is a key part of the national shipbuilding strategy. I look forward to receiving Sir John Parker’s recommendations on taking the programme forward soon.
Brendan O'Hara
If the Minister is unable to give a date for when the steel will be cut on the Type 26s, will she at least confirm that the five general-purpose frigates will be built on the Clyde?
Harriett Baldwin
I have given the hon. Gentleman a range of dates for some of the commitments we have already made and some of the contracts we have already placed as a result of this programme, which sustain jobs across the UK.
The need to ensure we have the skills required to deliver Type 26 also came up in the debate. That is an essential factor in the successful delivery of the programme and is crucial to our strategic aim of placing UK shipbuilding on a sustainable long-term footing.
In the interests of time, I will quickly skip through the issue of offshore patrol vessels. We are looking forward to the delivery of HMS Forth—a ship of that class—next year, and HMS Medway and HMS Trent remain on track.
It is important to put the Type 26 programme in its wider context. Overall, last year’s SDSR achieved a positive and balanced outcome. We are growing the defence budget in real terms for the first time in six years and delivering on our commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. The SDSR enables us to invest £178 billion in new equipment for our armed forces over the next decade, an increase of £12 billion on previous plans. In the maritime sector, we have set the trajectory for expansion of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet as we spend about £8 billion on Royal Navy surface warships over the next decade.
As I have explained, we continue to progress the Type 26 global combat ship programme. Hon. Members with constituents who work at the shipyards on the Clyde rightly emphasised the importance of the Type 26 global combat ship programme to the workforce. In response to concerns expressed on their behalf, the Ministry of Defence has consistently restated its commitment to the programme and confirmed that all eight ships will be built on the Clyde. There should be no lingering doubt on that point or on the idea that Royal Navy vessels would be built on the Clyde had Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom.
Chris Stephens
The Minister mentioned the national shipbuilding strategy, which has to report by the autumn statement. I am going to ask the question I asked earlier: does she expect an announcement on the procurement of Type 26 frigates by the autumn statement? That would be helpful for my constituents.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman is doing the right thing in representing the interests of his constituents. He is correct that the national shipbuilding strategy will report by the autumn statement.
Let me conclude, because I want to leave time for the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. It is of crucial importance to the Royal Navy that the Type 26 programme delivers the capability it needs. Equally, for the taxpayer it is crucial to ensure the delivery of a programme that represents value for money for the scale of investment it represents.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I thank all hon. Members who spoke in this debate, and I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their participation.
The Minister talked about good news, but this is good news with no timeframe. It is just talk—a footnote in Hansard. It is of no use to the communities of Govan and Scotstoun and those on the Clyde, whose families rely on the cutting of steel. The Minister talked about Scotland’s place in the Union and said, critically, that no ships would have been built there if we had left the Union. At this rate, there will be no ships built anywhere in Britain, never mind in Scotland. We might just farm them out to South Korea—it would be a wee bit cheaper.
Yet again, there is grave concern across the Chamber. I accept the point of view of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We may disagree on the constitution, but the history of shipbuilding in Belfast mirrors the history of shipbuilding on the Clyde. There is nothing about being better together, I am afraid. To those Members who look forward to HMNB Devonport housing the Type 26s, I say this: we need to get rid of the Type 45s first, and they are not working.
I again pressure the Minister, when the statement comes forward in November, to give us the date. Tell us when we are cutting steel. Let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the timetable for building Type 26 frigates on the Clyde.
Written Statements
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Committees and Ministerial Responsibilities
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
Today the Government are publishing an updated list of Cabinet committees and implementation taskforces. It includes three new committees, chaired by the Prime Minister, to oversee this Government’s strategic priorities and deliver our manifesto commitments.
The Economy and Industrial Strategy Committee will oversee the development of a new industrial strategy, ensuring that all parts of the country and all of our citizens see the benefits of economic growth; and will drive work to address the UK’s longstanding productivity issues. The EU Exit and Trade Committee will oversee work to withdraw the UK from the European Union and develop a new relationship between the UK and the EU; and oversee our plans to promote the UK as a place to do business and trade with, drive inward investment, and, in time, negotiate trade agreements. The Social Reform Committee will oversee social policy reforms, and drive the Government’s work to increase social mobility, deliver social justice, and make Britain a country that works for everyone, not just a privileged few.
These will sit alongside the National Security Council and the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, which will continue to serve the same purpose as previously. The nine sub-committees announced today will support the process of collective agreement across Government. The list also includes details of seven implementation taskforces, which will monitor and drive delivery of important cross-cutting priorities.
An updated list of ministerial responsibilities has also been published today.
Copies of the associated documents will be placed in the Library of the House and published on: http://www.gov.uk. The list of ministerial responsibilities will also be sent to each hon. Member.
[HCWS196]
Supporting Troubled Families
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I am pleased to announce the publication of the “National Evaluation of the first Troubled Families Programme” which ran between 2012 and 2015.
The programme was set up in 2012 to work with a minimum of 116,000 families with multiple and complex problems who had previously been failed by services.
This evaluation reveals the true scale of families’ problems, finding that families each had an average of seven serious social problems including issues of: drug and alcohol abuse; mental and physical health problems; domestic violence; debt; truancy; antisocial behaviour and unemployment.
Our own data show that more than 116,000 families on the programme saw their lives improve—more children attending school, youth crime and antisocial behaviour significantly cut and, in more than 18,000 cases, an adult holding down a job for three months or more.
The evaluation reports provide additional detail on how the programme benefited families. For example, in-depth interviews with the families found that they reported increased confidence as a result of the programme’s intensive “whole family” help, which they rated as better than the services which had tried to intervene before.
The evaluation also finds that the programme helped improve and join up local services for families by encouraging a single key worker approach to work with the whole family on all of its problems.
There are also important lessons in the reports that are being taken on board for the new troubled families programme which will work with up to 400,000 more families by 2020.
A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House and also made available on the gov.uk website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-evaluation-of-the-first-troubled-families-programme
[HCWS202]
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species: 17th Conference
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) took place in Johannesburg between 24 September and 5 October 2016. CITES is a vital international mechanism for protecting some of our most precious yet vulnerable global wildlife.
Having attended the conference, I can report it was a great success, delivering strong agreements to protect some of the world’s most iconic species. I am pleased that much of this action was driven by the UK.
For example, the UK led negotiations on African lions which saw the trade in wild lion bones banned and the establishment of a new CITES taskforce.
We also chaired discussions on rhinos, resulting in investigative action into failures to halt rhino horn trafficking in key destinations. A proposal to allow trade in rhino horn was also rejected.
Perhaps most significantly, and in recognition of the peril facing many elephant populations, the conference voted against a resumption of trading in modern day ivory, in line with recent domestic UK action. There was also a clear direction to close national ivory markets where these fuel poaching and illegal trade and decisive action to strengthen national ivory action plans which help combat ivory trafficking in key markets.
In addition, global rules on hunting trophies were enhanced, with export permits now mandated for almost all species listed as endangered.
The many victories for global wildlife are too numerous to detail, with action also delivered for pangolins, as the world’s most trafficked mammal, the African Grey Parrot and species of sharks amongt others.
Vitally, while CITES deals with the legal trade in species, illegal wildlife trade was also a strong focus, with agreements reached on increased global co-operation, and intelligence sharing to boost efforts to reduce demand for wildlife products and tackle corruption. This agreement is crucial as we look towards the Hanoi conference on the illegal wildlife trade which will bring together global leaders in November to push further action. Following on from the ground-breaking London Conference, the UK is providing funding and advice to Vietnam in hosting this latest conference, assuring the illegal wildlife trade’s place at the top of the global political agenda and delivering on our manifesto pledge to continue to lead the world on this issue. The Secretary of State Andrea Leadsom will lead HMG’s delegation to the conference, which will also be attended by HRH the Duke of Cambridge. Their presence at this vital time will show that the UK continues to be at the forefront of global action, pushing for an end to this brutal trade.
UK leadership in this area is clear. At home, we are tackling wildlife crime through our National Wildlife Crime Unit, which will receive £1.2 million of funding over the next four years. Abroad, the British military is delivering anti-poaching training to rangers in Gabon, home of Africa’s largest population of forest elephants. We are also investing £13 million in projects around the world to support communities and boost law enforcement through our illegal wildlife trade challenge fund, including specialised interception tracking courses to protect rhino and elephant populations across sub-Saharan Africa.
Decisions made in recent weeks will have a real impact in safeguarding some of the world’s most vulnerable species. The UK has been at the forefront of driving this and we will remain committed to protecting global wildlife for generations to come.
[HCWS198]
Hydrofluorocarbon Greenhouse Gases
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I would like to update the House on the outcome of the recent United Nations Montreal protocol negotiations in Rwanda.
I am very pleased to report that a deal was agreed among the 197 parties to the protocol to phase down hydrofluorocarbon greenhouse gases (HFCs) over the next three decades.
The Montreal protocol, agreed in 1987, is already seen as one of the most successful environmental treaties ever agreed, having phased out 98% of the ozone depleting substances that would have caused major damage to human health, agriculture and the wider environment. That included chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which were used in products such as refrigeration, air condition and aerosols. As a result, the ozone layer is showing the first signs of recovery.
The replacements for CFCs and HCFCs—hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—while not damaging the ozone layer, do still have a global warming potential thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. The growth of refrigeration and air conditioning in developing countries means HFC use could have amounted to as much as 11 % of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
HFC alternatives are increasingly available and the UK had, before this weekend’s agreement, already taken the lead in committing to cut usage by 80% by 2030—amongt the most ambitious phase downs in the world. The deal in Rwanda means the rest of the world is now following suit, bringing major benefits for the climate and levelling the playing field for UK businesses.
It is estimated that this deal will reduce cumulative emissions by the equivalent of between 60 and 70 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050, which equates to the output of around 600 coal fired power stations operating between now and 2050. In turn that is likely to avoid close to 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by the end of this century, making it possibly the single biggest step the world could have taken in achieving the Paris climate agreement goal of keeping temperatures well below 2 degrees.
The UK negotiating team played a central role in the discussions, influencing the strategy of like-minded countries to achieve an ambitious outcome and chairing the legal drafting group, which worked ceaselessly to turn the political agreement into legal text, then clarified and defended it through the final night of negotiations.
The key elements of the deal are as follows.
Developed countries will meet the following phase down commitment:
By 2019, production and consumption of HFCs will be reduced by 10% relative to the amount of HFCs produced or consumed in the years 2011 to 2013, plus an additional allowance of 15% of the baseline used for their phase out of HCFCs.
By 2024, the amount will be reduced by 40% and then by 70% by 2029, 80% by 2034 and finally 85% by 2036.
All developing countries, except India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, The United Arab Emirates, Iran and Iraq will meet the following phase down commitment:
By 2024, production and consumption of HFCs will be limited to 100% of the average amount of HFCs produced or consumed in the years 2020 to 2022, plus an additional allowance of 65% of the baseline used for their phase out of HCFCs.
By 2029, this amount will be reduced by 10% and then by 30% in 2035, 50% in 2040 and finally 80% by 2045.
Production and consumption established before 2020 will be eligible for financial support from developed countries to help with the transition to low global warming alternatives.
India Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, The United Arab Emirates, Iran and Iraq, will meet the following phase down commitment:
By 2028, production and consumption of HFCs will be limited to 100% of the average amount of HFCs produced or consumed in the years 2024 to 2026, plus an additional allowance of 65% of the baseline used for their phase out of HCFCs.
By 2032, this amount will be reduced by 10% and then by 20% in 2037, 30% in 2042 and finally 85% by 2047.
Production and consumption established before 2024 will be eligible for financial support from developed countries to help with the transition to low global warming alternatives.
Certain Gulf countries and others with high average temperatures will be able to exempt large scale air-conditioning from the phase down requirements if they believe suitable alternatives are not available for their climates.
There will be a review of the availability of technologies which use alternatives to HFCs in 2022 and every five years thereafter to inform any necessary adjustments to the phase down schedule. There will also be a review four to five years before 2028 specifically to consider whether those countries which have to cap HFC production and use by 2028 need a compliance deferral of two years due to faster HFC growth than anticipated.
[HCWS197]
1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Government have decided to opt in to the European Commission’s proposals for the acceptance by the member states, in the interests of the EU, of the accession of Kazakhstan, Peru and the Republic of Korea to the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.
All EU member states are party to the 1980 Hague Convention, the primary civil law international instrument which provides a mechanism to seek the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children to their country of habitual residence.
When a country wishes to accede to the convention, it is necessary for an existing contracting state to accept that country’s accession before the convention can apply between them. It is the European Commission’s view that there is exclusive competence on the EU for all matters relating to the 1980 Convention and that therefore member states must be authorised by the EU to accept accessions by third countries and must do so collectively through Council decisions.
Although not anticipated in the proposals, the Government believe that the UK opt-in under the protocol to Title V of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union applies and they have therefore asserted their right to choose whether to opt-in and have decided that it is in the UK’s best interests to do so.
The Government have taken this decision notwithstanding the fact that they dispute the Commission’s claim to exclusive competence.
The Government believe that the wider significance of these proposals for external competence mean that it is in the UK’s interests to participate fully in these negotiations, including having the ability to vote. These proposals must be agreed by unanimity within the EU Council.
[HCWS201]
OSCE Informal Ministerial Council
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) attended an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of participating states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), held in Potsdam, Germany on 1 September 2016 at the invitation of German Foreign Minister and OSCE chair-in-office, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Nearly all 57 OSCE states were represented, around 40 of these by their Foreign Ministers.
Foreign Minister Steinmeier called the meeting to discuss both current security challenges in the region and the OSCE’s future role and agenda. A number of common themes emerged over the course of the meeting. Many Foreign Ministers, like the Foreign Secretary, highlighted resolution of the crisis in Ukraine, and restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty as the most pressing priority for the OSCE. Strong support for the work of the OSCE’s special monitoring mission (SMM) was evident, with the chair-in-office leading many speakers in condemning the obstruction of SMM operations and intimidation of monitors.
As well as conflict prevention and resolution, other themes that emerged as high priorities for many OSCE participating states were protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and reducing the risk of military accidents and incidents. A strong desire was evident on the part of most states to restore respect for OSCE principles and commitments, many referring to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and military intervention in the Donbas in this context.
On the eve of the Potsdam meeting, Foreign Minister Steinmeier published proposals relating to conventional arms control in Europe. Updating existing confidence and security building measures in this field is a UK priority and, we believe, is needed urgently to reduce the risk of military accidents and incidents. We will continue to work closely with Germany and other partners to push for such modernisation as well as for respect for the spirit and letter of these instruments. Implementation of all commitments is a prerequisite for building trust and restoring confidence between the participating states of the OSCE.
In the margins of the Potsdam meeting the Foreign Secretary had many bilateral meetings and conversations. These included exchanges with his Ukrainian and Polish counterparts, and with OSCE secretary-general, Lamberto Zannier. He expressed strong UK support for the work of the OSCE’s autonomous institutions when he met Michael Link, director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and Dunja Mijatovic, the representative on freedom of the media. In his various meetings the Foreign Secretary commended the Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the UK candidate to head the OSCE’s third autonomous institution, the High Commission on National Minorities.
In this first encounter as Foreign Secretary with the OSCE, the Foreign Secretary noted the potential, as yet not fully tapped, of the organisation’s uniquely comprehensive approach to security and a participation that reaches from Canada to central Asia. The discussions in Potsdam helped clarify priorities for the coming weeks, months and years. We now need to focus our efforts on tackling them together with robust determination.
[HCWS200]
Relations between the UK and Argentina
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I would like to update the House on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina following my recent visit to Buenos Aires.
After more than a decade of difficult relations under Argentina’s previous Government, the election of President Macri in November 2015 paved the way for an improvement in our relationship. It is in the UK’s interests to strengthen ties with Argentina. Argentina is the world’s 25th largest economy and has considerable natural resources. A more constructive relationship will enhance the UK’s prosperity.
Since December the Government have taken positive steps towards resetting our relationship by focusing on areas where both states can benefit. The Prime Minister has committed to move our relationship with Argentina into a more productive phase.
During my visit to Buenos Aires—the first by a Foreign Office Minister since 2009—I agreed an historic UK-Argentina joint statement establishing closer co-operation across our bilateral relationship. This includes ambitions to: increase trade links; identify new investment opportunities; strengthen cultural ties; co-operate in the fight against corruption and organised crime; and increase links in the fields of science and technology.
Our position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands remains unchanged. The UK will always support the right of the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future.
The joint statement secured important benefits for the Falkland Islanders. We committed to work together on areas of mutual interest in the South Atlantic. Argentina agreed to take appropriate measures to remove any obstacles limiting the economic growth and sustainable development of the Falkland Islands, including in trade, fishing, shipping and oil and gas. We also agreed that Falkland Islanders are free to set up further flight connections with other countries in the region, with a monthly stopover in Argentina. Both sides expressed support for the recently confirmed project to use DNA examination to identify the remains of unknown Argentine soldiers buried in the Falkland Islands.
The Government will explore ways to build on these positive first steps and consider how the UK can best maximise the opportunities offered by an improved relationship with Argentina.
[HCWS199]