House of Commons
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I am sure the whole House will join me in marking the 50th anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy this Friday. That event shocked not just Wales but the whole of the country and the wider world. I am sure colleagues across the House will pay tribute to the bravery and strong community ties that pulled the people of Aberfan through the immediate aftermath and provided so much support in the months and years that followed.
Wales is benefiting from millions of pounds of UK investment across the country. We are modernising our rail infrastructure, investing in the North Wales prison, and providing significant funding and support to improve internet speeds. This is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to delivering improvements in infrastructure in all corners of Wales.
Alberto Costa
Wales receives its funding from the Barnett bloc, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that the UK Government have a part to play in UK infrastructure so that it meets the strategic need in the UK as well as in Wales?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He rightly underlines the Barnett arrangements, and we were pleased to introduce a funding floor that provides Wales with £115 for every £100 that is spent in England. In addition, we have the electrification of the Great Western main line, North Wales prison is a significant project, and we have broadband roll-out. After all, we are interconnected economies, and the Government are determined to do the best for the whole of the UK.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he is doing cross-border with the Mersey Dee Alliance and the all-party group on Mersey Dee North Wales. That resonates with our policy to develop a growth deal that works on a cross-border basis. We are working with those who are developing the north Wales growth deal. We are in negotiations on that. We have recently received the Growth Track 360 bid, and we will analyse that in due course. We are keen to work together, and with the Welsh Government.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend highlights the investment in the Great Western main line, and much attention is rightly drawn to the infrastructure of the electrification itself. However, it is fair to say that, as soon as we have electrified as far as Didcot or Swindon, the new trains will be operational, so his constituents, my constituents and those in Wales and the south-west in general will benefit from modern trains well before the infrastructure has been completed.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Roads are critical in infrastructural investment—roads on both sides of the border. What conversations has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Welsh Government about the A5/A483, which goes from Oswestry towards the Wrexham area, given the particular road safety problems in the community of Chirk?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is something that has crossed the discussions over the north Wales growth deal, and it underlines the interconnectivity of the region she mentions with Manchester, Merseyside and north Wales. We are working closely with the Welsh Government on their infrastructure plan and the national infrastructure plans for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is important that they dovetail appropriately.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done on this important issue. I think he drew attention to it at one of the first meetings immediately after the general election, and that started the discussions that have led to the Growth Track 360 proposal. There are growth elements and transport infrastructure elements, and it is important that we ensure that those come together for the benefit of the whole region. I am happy to work with him and with the Department for Transport as we approach the control period 6 considerations that will take place in due course.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I, too, associate my party and myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on the Aberfan disaster.
The Treasury aims to pool local government pension schemes in Wales and England to create wealth funds to invest in infrastructure, with each fund containing accumulated assets of £25 billion. Combined Welsh assets amount to £13 billion, meaning that if the Treasury has its way, Welsh funds will be swallowed up by a cross-border pool. Will the Secretary of State demand a specific Welsh wealth fund so that the contributions of Welsh local government workers are used to invest in infrastructure projects in Wales?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman raises a fairly technical area of policy. Appropriate economies of scale are involved in this. I am happy to discuss the details with him. The Welsh Government have made their views clear. However, it is not only about “Welsh money for Wales”—which, on the face of it, would sound good—but about having the economies of scale such that we can access funding elsewhere as well. Therefore, it is not necessarily the right thing, but I am certainly not closed to the idea.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
I am very supportive of achieving a deal for the Swansea bay city region. However, this is not about Government telling local authorities what to do; it is about empowering them to bring forward bespoke proposals for their region. I welcomed the announcement in the Budget that we were opening negotiations, but it must be the right deal—a well-thought-out deal that delivers for the whole region.
Geraint Davies
The Minister will know that Brexit will deal a major body blow to Swansea’s universities and the Swansea region overall. What assurances can he give that in the autumn statement the Chancellor will make a firm commitment to put his money where his mouth is, because we want hard cash, not hot air, to provide the required support for jobs and prosperity in the area?
Guto Bebb
First, I should correct the hon. Gentleman: the city of Swansea voted to leave, so if there was a body blow to Swansea, it was delivered by people in Swansea. On the city deal, he has to be slightly fairer about what this Government are doing. We have delivered a city deal for Cardiff, with over £1 billion of investment, including £500 million from this Government, and a guarantee that the European elements would be supported. If the Swansea city deal is as good as early indications appear to suggest, it can be supported by this Government in due course.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The Swansea bay city deal aims to turn the region, which includes Neath, into a digital super-hub to boost the local economy, transform energy delivery, and improve health and social care. Will the Minister assure the House that this deal will not face the delays experienced by the Swansea bay tidal lagoon and rail electrification projects?
Guto Bebb
It is important to point out that this was announced in the last Budget and is being taken forward. However, there is a bottom-up approach. This Government do not take the view that Westminster knows best. We believe very strongly that the proposal should come from the region, and it is fantastic to see the way in which the four local authorities are working together. I am confident that the deal brings something quite special to south-west Wales, but let us see the detail. If the detail is persuasive, the support will be forthcoming.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
This week will see the completion of the engineering work in the Severn tunnel required for the electrification of the Great Western main line. This is a truly historic occasion and a clear demonstration of this Government’s commitment to deliver a rail investment strategy that will benefit the people of Wales in its entirety.
Justin Madders
The Secretary of State has spoken of the Growth Track 360 campaign, which, as the Minister will know, has the potential to transform the north Wales and Cheshire area by delivering 70,000 new jobs over 20 years. Improving the Wrexham to Bidston line, which serves Neston in my constituency, has been identified as the first priority for the team. Will the Minister join in the words of encouragement that we have already heard in agreeing to make representations to the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement so as to deliver some of this much-needed investment?
Guto Bebb
I am pleased to echo the words of the Secretary of State, who highlighted the Growth Track 360 proposals. These are made in north Wales or made in north-west England proposals which will try to improve connectivity between parts of north-west England and north-east Wales. We are supportive of the proposals. I am pleased to say that this morning the Treasury wrote to the proposers in north Wales stating that support.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Some £738 million has been ring-fenced for the electrification of the valley lines, although that is not expected to be completed until at least 2022 or 2023. What assurances has the Minister had that the £120 million from the European regional development fund will still be forthcoming for this project before the UK leaves the EU?
Guto Bebb
The situation is very clear. The proposals for the south Wales metro are part of the Cardiff city deal. They are a significant investment, and they include a contribution of around £110 million from the European fund. My understanding from the Treasury is that it will, if necessary, underwrite that element of the contribution, but if the proposals move forward in a timely manner, the European elements will be funded by the European Union.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I associate myself with the words of the Secretary of State on Aberfan. In 1966, I was the same age as the schoolchildren who were killed in that tragedy. My predecessor Cledwyn Hughes, who was Secretary of State for Wales, said that that was the darkest day of his life when Aberfan lost a generation.
On rail integration, can the Minister tell the House whether he has had discussions with the Welsh Government, and indeed the Irish Government, about connectivity between rail and the port of Holyhead?
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Is it not a scandal that during its 13 years in government, Labour failed to electrify a single mile of railway track in Wales?
Mr Speaker
That is a most interesting point, but it is not germane to the hon. Gentleman’s responsibilities. A brief sentence in response to the right hon. Lady will suffice.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Department for Transport and its predecessors have prevaricated over funding rail electrification in north Wales for more than 40 years, and can he give us a definite date for the project to move ahead?
Guto Bebb
I agree with the hon. Lady that the situation in north Wales has been one of under-investment for a very long time, so it is important to highlight the current investments: £43 million for signalling in north Wales, and a significant investment in the Chester links into Wrexham. It is important to look at the Growth Track 360 proposals carefully and coherently to see how we can improve connectivity through rail in north Wales.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in marking the 50th anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy, and I pay tribute to the spirit and resilience of the people of Aberfan.
Rail passenger numbers into our capital city station, Cardiff Central, are forecast to increase to 22 million a year by 2025, so the expansion of the station, in conjunction with the south Wales metro project that includes EU funding, is critical. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government have been willing to invest in Birmingham and Edinburgh stations but will not confirm funding to accelerate feasibility work on expanding Cardiff Central? Does he want our capital city to have a station that is fit for purpose, or not?
Guto Bebb
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place on the Front Bench. The situation in Cardiff is another example of the old-fashioned view that Westminster knows best. We are still waiting for the proposals from south Wales for what needs to be done in relation to Cardiff station. This Government are investing in rail in a manner that simply did not happen under 13 years of Labour government. If the proposal from south Wales meets the Government’s expectations, it will be looked at in a constructive manner.
Jo Stevens
In April’s Welsh questions, the Minister told the House:
“The European Union makes a massive contribution to the Welsh economy: it is our largest trading partner; it supports thousands of jobs; and it provides significant investments for projects all around Wales.”—[Official Report, 13 April 2016; Vol. 608, c.340-341.]
Four months on from the referendum result, what is the Secretary of State’s Brexit plan for Wales to replace that trade, those jobs and that infrastructure? Where is that plan, and when are we going to see it?
Guto Bebb
I remind the hon. Lady that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. I stand by the comments that I made four months ago, but it is important to point out that the Wales Office has been going around Wales and talking to stakeholders, identifying the opportunities as a result of Brexit and trying to provide reassurance. I hope that the hon. Lady will at least welcome the commitment made by the Chancellor to support European funding projects in Wales and agricultural funding in Wales. Those are underwritten proposals from the Treasury that Opposition Front Benchers should welcome.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I remain in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the proposed lagoon at Swansea bay. This is an exciting project for Wales. I am due to meet Charles Hendry tomorrow to gain an update on the progress of the independent review, and I look forward to reading the findings when he reports later this autumn.
Margaret Greenwood
Last week, Sheffield Forgemasters and a host of other industrial companies in the northern powerhouse urged Charles Hendry to back a new tidal lagoon project, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. If the Government will not listen to Wales, will they listen to the industrial north and finally get on with the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project ?
Alun Cairns
I recognise the hon. Lady’s interest in all things environmental, but Charles Hendry’s review has been seen as a positive intervention. The approach he has taken has been welcomed, as has been pointed out, not only by the lagoon company, local authorities and politicians, but by the business community in south Wales and across the northern powerhouse. We recognise the contribution that it could make, and we are looking forward to his judgment.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
While it is important to take the findings of the Hendry review into account, will the Secretary of State press for progress on this exciting project as soon as it reports? The project not only has the potential to deliver clean energy, but will continue to build on the success, vibrancy and ambition that characterises Swansea and Wales.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend, like me, looks forward to the Charles Hendry report. There is no doubt that, as a test project, it has great potential for Swansea bay, but he, like me, has an obligation to the taxpayer to ensure that it works for consumers and taxpayers, and that it represents good value for money for all concerned.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady and I agree that we would like something like that to be developed and to go ahead for the prospects and opportunities it will provide, but we have an obligation to the taxpayer: we have to ensure that it provides value for money. Only in recent weeks, the hon. Lady and her colleagues have complained about the cost of energy for Tata and other energy-intensive industries. It is important that we generate energy in a cost-effective way that suits consumers as well as taxpayers.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his time as shadow Secretary of State and thank him for his contribution at the Dispatch Box in that role.
As the House will know, tourism is vital to delivering economic growth in Wales. It has been a great year for inbound tourism in the UK and in Wales, with day visits increasing by 24% in the last 12 months.
Paul Flynn
Will the Minister pay tribute to the magnificent tourist attractions in Newport—Tredegar House, the wetlands, Celtic Manor, and the splendid Roman baths and amphitheatre—all of which increased tourist numbers last year by up to 70%? Will he confirm that visitors to all parts of Wales always praise the warmth of our hospitality?
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
With B&Bs such as the Old Rectory on the Lake and the Ty’n y Cornel in Tal-y-llyn under new management and prepared, I hope, to do bar mitzvahs and gay weddings, does the Minister not agree with me that Welsh B&Bs offer a warm welcome to the English?
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I associate myself and my colleagues with the tribute to the people of Aberfan on the 50th anniversary.
In a previous life, the Minister was a very passionate supporter of the campaign to reduce VAT on tourism. He has made some very pronounced comments about that campaign in the past. Does he stand by them? More importantly, what representations will he make to the Treasury to make such a case to benefit tourism in our communities?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that I am a politician who advocates lower taxes, so I welcome the fact that this Government have cut national insurance contributions for small businesses and are cutting corporation tax for small businesses. There is a case to be made on VAT for many sectors of the economy, and that case will be made by the Wales Office, but there are no promises, I am afraid.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one dividend of Brexit has been the fall in the pound against the euro, meaning that holidays in Wales are now 15% cheaper for our European friends?
Guto Bebb
Certainly I am more than happy to agree with my hon. Friend that tourism in north Wales has done extremely well over the past few months. Last week I spoke to hoteliers in Llandudno, who were saying that they have enjoyed 90%-plus occupancy during the summer, so there has been a Brexit dividend in that respect.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the First Minister and the Welsh Minister for the Economy. We have not lost focus while these issues have been out of the headlines. The Government leave no stone unturned in supporting the steel sector.
Alex Cunningham
What assurances can the Secretary of State give that, in the event of the completion of a joint venture by Tata Strip Products and ThyssenKrupp, commitments will be made on jobs, investment and the continuation of primary steel making at Port Talbot and across Wales?
Alun Cairns
It is in the UK’s strategic interests to maintain a steel-making capacity, and so quite obviously to maintain that at Port Talbot. The Government stand ready and waiting to support any bidder. It is a matter for Tata as to whether it pursues the joint venture. We are maintaining a relationship with Tata and other potential bidders that were in discussions earlier this year. We are keen to maintain a sustainable future.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Welsh steel is obviously of the highest quality, and I hope that when Heathrow airport is expanded Welsh steel will be used. In that sense, will the Secretary of State have a word with the Prime Minister to ensure that she stops faffing around on Heathrow expansion and that we have a positive decision as early as possible?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but he knows that that decision will be coming soon. He makes an important point about the use of steel in infrastructure projects. The UK Government have already changed procurement rules, making it easier for British steel to be used in contracts. For example, Crossrail, Europe’s largest civil engineering scheme, uses almost entirely British steel.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As the representative for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has a very personal constituency reason for wishing to acknowledge the anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy. Let us hear him with the courtesy he warrants.
Gerald Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the representative for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I too would like to associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), in relation to the 50th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, an unimaginable loss for the families and, indeed, the whole community.
One major challenge—if not the major challenge—facing the Welsh steel industry is that its energy costs are far higher than those of our competitors. Despite warm words, little action has been taken. What action is the Secretary of State or the Government taking to bring down energy costs faced by energy-intensive industries?
Alun Cairns
I welcome the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to their positions. He makes an important point on steel-making capacity and energy costs. He will be well aware that the energy-intensive industry package the Government have brought forward responded to the demands from the industry and from Tata specifically. We have reduced energy costs to the steel sector by £109 million, which has been welcomed and has put the sector in a much stronger position, with a turnaround in finance from a loss of £64 million to an operating profit of £95 million.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
The in-principle agreement between the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport to devolve the Wales and Borders franchise was announced on 21 November 2014. We are engaging constructively with the Welsh Government to enable them to achieve the successful procurement of the next Wales and Borders franchise in October 2018.
Louise Haigh
Labour has tabled an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill to write free wi-fi into the renewal of any rail franchise. Does the Minister agree that this requirement would be welcomed by passengers in Wales and should be included in Arriva’s next franchise agreement?
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
Ensuring rural areas of Wales benefit from our broadband roll-out is one of my key priorities. The UK Government have supported investment in broadband across rural Wales, including £14.2 million in Powys and £13.9 million in Gwynedd. The Secretary of State recently had positive discussions with the Welsh Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and the Minister for Science and Skills on future work to roll out broadband in Wales.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with me that superfast broadband is a key driver for successful diversification in remote rural economies, and does he agree that it is time BT Openreach raised its game?
Guto Bebb
I am sure the mailbox of every MP would highlight the fact that it is time for BT Openreach to raise its game. On the importance of broadband to rural economic development, I can only agree fully with my hon. Friend. In my constituency of Aberconwy we have a call centre in Llanrwst, which is only in place as a result of the broadband roll-out encouraged by this Government’s funding.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
In a Twitter message to me, the director of BT in Wales said that the
“vast majority of rural Wales, including Arfon, can already access superfast broadband”.
Does the Minister agree with her?
Guto Bebb
The “vast majority” is perhaps overstating the case, but the improvement over recent months has been spectacular, with rates of 90%-plus in many rural counties. There is still more work to be done, but in terms of rural broadband we are going in the right direction in Wales and the UK.
Hywel Williams
The main superfast broadband line passes the community of Crymlyn in my constituency, literally at the bottom of the people’s gardens. Many of these people run businesses from home and need to access substantial documents, but the download speed in Crymlyn would be an embarrassment even in the previous century. When will the Minister, or his Labour confederates in Cardiff, actually do something to remove this huge barrier to prosperity and economic growth?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the investment in his own constituency, which is approaching £12 million. There are still issues in relation to broadband roll-out in Wales, but sometimes we have to recognise that what has been achieved is tremendous. We are slightly ahead of the situation in England, which is something we should all applaud. However, I make no bones about the fact that more and faster broadband connectivity in Wales is crucial. The Wales Office will carry on pressurising BT Openreach to ensure that that is achieved sooner rather than later.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I know the whole House will wish to join me in remembering all those who lost their lives and were affected by the Aberfan disaster 50 years ago this week. It claimed the lives of 144 people, the vast majority of them children. It caused devastation to the local community. It is right that we pause and reflect on this important anniversary, and recognise the solidarity and resilience of the people of Aberfan to overcome this powerful tragedy.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I will have further such meetings later today, in addition to my duties in this House.
Mr Bone
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister? I am of an age that I can remember the terrible black and white film of this tragedy. It affected everyone. We in this House pass on our thoughts to the people of Aberfan today.
Mr Speaker, as you might know it is my birthday today. The Prime Minister has already given me a huge birthday present by letting everyone know that we will be out of the European Union no later than 31 March 2019. May I press her for another present? Her excellent policy of closing Victorian prisons and opening modern ones is spot-on. Will she support the reopening of Wellingborough prison as part of this excellent programme, or would she rather just sing happy birthday?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday today: many happy returns! I hope that Mrs Bone is going to treat the occasion in an appropriate manner. [Laughter.]
The Prime Minister
Calm down, Mr Speaker.
On the serious issue about prisons, I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend applauds the policy we are following of closing out-of-date prisons and building new ones. I hear the lobbying he has made for Wellingborough, and I can assure him that Wellingborough is one of the sites that is being considered. The Secretary of State will look at the issue very carefully and make an announcement in due course.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in commemorating the disaster at Aberfan all those years ago when 118 children along with many adults died. Many in that community are still living with that tragedy, and they will live with it for the rest of their days. As a young person growing up at that time, I remember it well, particularly the collections for the disaster fund. The BBC documentary presented by Huw Edwards was brilliant and poignant, and serves to remind us all of what the disaster was about.
One in four of us will suffer a mental health problem. Analysis by the King’s Fund suggests that 40% of our mental health trusts had their budgets cut last year, and six trusts have seen their budgets cut for three years in a row. Is the Prime Minister really confident that we are delivering parity of esteem for mental health?
The Prime Minister
First, like the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I am of an age when I can remember seeing on television those terrible scenes of what happened in Aberfan. I did not see the whole of Huw Edwards’ documentary, but I thought the bits that I happened to see last night were very poignant, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Interestingly, what it showed again was the issue of those in power not being willing to step up to the plate initially and to accept what had actually happened, but the inquiry was very clear about where the responsibility lay.
It is right that we are introducing parity of esteem for mental health in our national health service. We have waited too long for this, and it is important that it is being done. We are actually investing more in mental health services—an estimated record £11.7 billion. In particular, we are increasing the overall number of children’s beds to the highest number for mental health problems, which I think is important. There is, of course, more for us to do in looking at mental health, but we have made an important start and, as I say, that funding will be there.
Jeremy Corbyn
I received a letter from Colin, who has a family member with a chronic mental health condition. Many others, like him, have relatives going through a mental health crisis. He says that the
“NHS is so dramatically underfunded”
that too often it is left to the underfunded police forces to deal with the consequences of this crisis. Indeed, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall has this month threatened legal action against the NHS because he is forced to hold people with mental conditions in police cells because there are not enough NHS beds. I simply ask the Prime Minister this: if the Government are truly committed to parity of esteem, why is this trust and so many others facing an acute financial crisis at the present time?
The Prime Minister
May I first of all say to Colin that I think all of us in this House recognise the difficulties people have when coping with mental health problems? I commend those in this House who have been prepared to stand up and refer to their own mental health problems. I think that has sent a very important signal to people with mental health issues across the country.
The right hon. Gentleman raises the whole question of the interaction between the NHS and police forces. I am very proud of the fact that when I was Home Secretary I actually worked with the Department of Health to bring a change to the way in which police forces dealt with people in mental health crisis. That is why we see those triage pilots out on the streets and better NHS support being given to police forces, so that the number of people who have to be taken to a police cell as a place of safety has come down. Overall, I think it has more than halved, and in some areas it has come down by even more than that. This is a result of the action that this Government have taken.
Jeremy Corbyn
The reality is that no one with a mental health condition should ever be taken to a police cell. Such people should be supported in the proper way, and I commend the police and crime commissioners who have managed to end the practice in their areas. The reality is, however, that it is not just Devon and Cornwall suffering cuts; the Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust has been cut in every one of the last three years.
I agree with the Prime Minister that it is a very good thing for Members to stand up and openly discuss mental health issues that they have experienced, because we need to end the stigma surrounding mental health conditions throughout the country. However, NHS trusts are in a financial crisis. According to NHS Providers, it seems to be the worst financial crisis in NHS history: 80% of acute hospitals are now in deficit. There was a time, in 2010, when the NHS was in surplus. What has happened?
The Prime Minister
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what has happened in relation to NHS funding. We asked the NHS itself to come up with a five-year plan, and we asked the NHS itself to say what extra funding was needed to deliver on that. The NHS came up with its five-year plan, led by Simon Stevens as its chief executive. He said that £8 billion was needed. We are giving £10 billion of extra funding to the NHS. I might also remind the right hon. Gentleman that at the last election, it was not the Conservative party that was refusing to guarantee funding for the NHS; it was the Labour party.
Jeremy Corbyn
In six years, the NHS has gone from surplus to the worst crisis in its history. A total of £3 billion was wasted on a top-down reorganisation that no one wanted, and Simon Stevens made it very clear to the Select Committee yesterday that he did not believe that NHS England had enough money to get through the crisis that it is facing.
May I offer an analysis from the Care Quality Commission, which seems to have quite a good grasp of what is going on? It says that cuts in adult social care are
“translating to increased A&E attendances, emergency admissions and delays to people leaving hospital, which in turn is affecting the ability of a growing number of trusts to meet their performance and financial targets.”
Will the Prime Minister also address the reckless and counterproductive adult social care cuts that were made by her predecessor?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman quoted what had been said by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England. At the time of the autumn statement last November, he said that
“our case for the NHS has been heard and actively supported.”
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of social care, and the interaction between healthcare and social care. More than £5 billion extra was put into the better care fund in order to deal with precisely those issues, and local authorities are able to raise 2% of council tax to deal with the social care costs that they face. What is important, however, is for the health service and local authorities to work together to ensure that they deliver the best possible service to people who require that social care. I saw a very good example of that at Salford Royal on Monday, and I want to see more examples throughout the national health service, delivering for patients. We have put in the funding, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party would not have done, so that the NHS will receive better care for patients.
Jeremy Corbyn
We all want local government and the NHS to work closely together, but the problem is that local government funding has been cut, and 400,000 fewer people are receiving publicly funded social care as a result. The NHS is having difficulty coping with the crisis that it is in, and unfortunately there is bed-blocking. Acute patients cannot leave, because no social care is available for them somewhere down the line. The issue is a funding crisis in both the NHS and local government. Figures published by NHS trusts show that the total deficit is £2.45 billion, but the chief executive of NHS Providers says that the figure may be even bigger. The Government are disguising the extent of the crisis through temporary bailouts. [Interruption.] They are bailing out trusts in a crisis. That is, of course, a good thing, but why are the trusts in a crisis in the first place?
Next month, sustainability and transformation plans are going to be published. Many people across the country are quite alarmed by this because of the threat to accident and emergency departments. Will the Prime Minister deal with this issue now by quite simply saying there will be no downgrades and no closures of A&E departments in the statement coming out next month?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that over the course of this Parliament, the Government will be spending over half a trillion pounds on the national health service. That is a record level of investment in our national health service. There is a key difference between the way the right hon. Gentleman approaches this and how I approach it: Conservative Members believe that people at a local level should be able to make decisions about the national health service, and that decisions about the national health service should be led by clinicians—it should not be a top-down approach, which is typical of the Labour party.
Jeremy Corbyn
Wow! Well, top-down was what we got. It cost £3 billion for a reorganisation that nobody wanted at all.
I started by asking the Prime Minister about parity of esteem. All this Government have produced is parity of failure—failing mental health patients; failing elderly people who need social care; failing the 4 million on NHS waiting lists; failing the five times as many people who are waiting more than four hours at A&E departments—and another winter crisis is looming. The Society for Acute Medicine has it right when it says that this funding crisis and the local government funding crisis are leaving the NHS “on its knees”.
The Prime Minister
What has happened in the NHS over the past six years? More patients being treated, more calls to the ambulance service, more operations, more doctors, more nurses—that is what has been happening in the NHS. But let us just look at the right hon. Gentleman’s party’s approach to the national health service: a former shadow Health Secretary said that it would be “irresponsible” to put more money into the national health service; and a former leader of the Labour party wanted to “weaponise” the national health service. At every election the Labour party claims that the Conservatives will cut NHS spending; after every election we increase NHS spending. At every election Labour claims the Tories will privatise the NHS; after every election when we have been in government we have protected the NHS. There is only one party that has cut funding for the NHS: the Labour party in Wales.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are right to invest in infrastructure such as the A303. That can make a real difference to local communities, but it is important that local communities embrace those opportunities. I know that my hon. Friend has been putting together ideas for a vision for Yeovil and I am sure he will share them with my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I join the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party in remembering the Aberfan disaster. Our thoughts are with everyone affected by that.
Thousands of innocent civilians have now been killed by Saudi air strikes in Yemen. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that those civilians have not been killed by Paveway IV missiles partially manufactured in Scotland that are under licence from her Government to Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister
First, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his election as deputy leader of the Scottish National party?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have one of the toughest regimes in the world in relation to arms exports. When allegations arise, we press—I have pressed in the past and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pressed—the Saudi Arabia Government to properly investigate the issues and to learn lessons from them.
Angus Robertson
I thank the Prime Minister for her kind wishes but, to return to the subject of my question, it is beyond doubt that Saudi air forces are bombing Yemen. Planes made in Britain are being flown by pilots who were trained by Britain and dropping missiles that are made in Britain. I asked her a direct question and she could not answer it, so I will try a second time. Can she give the House an assurance that civilians have not been killed by Paveway IV bombs being dropped on Yemen that are partially manufactured in Scotland under license by her Government? If she does not know the answer to that question, how can she possibly, in good conscience, continue selling them to Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister
In response to the right hon. Gentleman, the point that I made was very simple: we press for proper investigations into what has happened in those incidents before we reach a decision or a conclusion. We have a very strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is important for this country in terms of dealing with counter-terrorism and a number of other issues, but what matters, when incidents happen about which there is concern, is that they are properly investigated.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am sure that he is not the only Member of the House who has had that experience, and he is certainly not the only person who has been affected, as Members will know from their constituency mailbags. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced a review of online ticket sales. Professor Mike Waterson’s independent report on online secondary ticketing makes a number of recommendations, including some whereby the industry itself could better protect itself from the problem. The Government will look very carefully at those recommendations to see what can be done to address the issue.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I recognise that the hon. Lady has taken a particular interest in this issue. I am sure that she will recognise, as I hope other Members do, why it was that I set up the inquiry. For too long, people who had been subjected to child—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
For too long, the voices of people who had been subjected to child sexual abuse went unheard and they felt that they were not getting justice. That is why it is very important that the inquiry is able to continue and to find that justice for them.
I have to say to the hon. Lady that one of the important aspects of this is that, over the years, too many people have had concerns that those in positions of power have intervened to stop them getting justice. There were stories around about the inquiry and about individuals related to the inquiry, but the Home Secretary cannot intervene on the basis of suspicion, rumour or hearsay.
The hon. Lady refers to the statement that was made in this House yesterday about information being discussed with a director general at the Home Office. She will also have noted that it was asked that that conversation would be confidential, and it was, as far as I am aware, treated as such. It is important for us to recognise that when the Home Office was officially informed of issues, it acted. It is now for the inquiry to get on and deliver for victims and survivors.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As a former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend is well aware of the impact of the Aberfan disaster on south Wales and those local communities. As I said in my opening remarks, the events were absolutely tragic and the thoughts of the whole House are with those affected by them. I can give the commitment that she is asking for to Wales and to working with the Welsh Government. I am clear that this Government will deliver a country that works for everyone, and that means every part of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Wales Bill will put in place a historic transfer of powers to the Welsh Assembly. It will allow the Welsh Government to focus on the job of transforming the Welsh economy and, of course, we are talking to the Welsh Government about how we go forward with negotiations for leaving the EU.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Progress today has been very slow, so I appeal to colleagues to speed up. I call Stephen Pound.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Everybody in this House recognises the role and contribution of community pharmacies up and down the country, but it is also right that we look at how we are spending NHS money. That is why the Government are looking carefully at this whole issue. If the hon. Gentleman supports community pharmacies, perhaps he ought to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, because his right hon. Friend’s policy is to nationalise the health service completely, lock, stock and barrel—GP surgeries, Macmillan nurses and community pharmacies.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and he is absolutely right. This month, the Government will take a decision on the appropriate site for extended airport capacity in the south-east. The subject has been debated, discussed and speculated about for 40 years; this Government will take a decision, but then a formal process has to be undertaken. The Government will identify their preferred site option. That will go to a statutory consultation, and then the Government will consider the results of that consultation and introduce an airports national planning statement on which the House will vote.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman’s view. No decisions on Fort George or other locations have been taken and the Ministry of Defence will engage with all parties impacted by any such decisions, including in Scotland.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has expressed reluctance to submit to the House even broad plans for our negotiations with the EU because of worries that to do so might weaken her Government’s negotiating position. She might have noticed that, this week, one or more Brexiteer members of her Cabinet have been briefing the newspapers copiously on every proposal being put forward in papers to the relevant Cabinet Committee by their colleagues and launching political attacks on Cabinet colleagues who seem to disagree with them. Will she take firm action to stop this process? Does she also agree that the proper approach should involve parliamentary scrutiny of the broad strategy, once her Government have reached agreement on what it should be?
The Prime Minister
The Government are very clear that the vote on 23 June was a vote to ensure that we had control of movement of people from the EU into the UK. Also, we want the best possible access for businesses for trading in goods and services, and for operating within the European market. That is what the Government will be aiming for, and we will be ambitious in that. Parliament will have its say. There are going to be lengthy negotiations over the course of the two years and more, and Parliament will have its say in a whole variety of ways, not least in relation to the great repeal Bill.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an issue that is a matter of concern to Members across the House. I am making sure that those who are being assessed are being assessed properly and that the right decisions are being taken. The Department for Work and Pensions is looking at the whole process of what should be done and how those assessments should be undertaken. I hope that she welcomes the fact that this Government have said that those with long-term conditions that are not going to improve will not be put through the regular assessments that they had under her Labour Government.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The first nuclear science degree apprenticeship, with apprenticeships with EDF at Hinkley Point and with the Ministry of Defence, has just been launched at Bridgwater and Taunton College. This is at the forefront of the Government’s apprenticeship reform policy. The course combines academic study with practical work experience and it is paid. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of business-led course that the nation needs if it is to forge ahead?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend Bridgwater and Taunton College for the steps it is taking to work with businesses to ensure that its courses are what business needs. That is exactly what we want to see. We also want a regeneration of our expertise in the nuclear industry.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that we have transitional arrangements in place and that action was taken by the Government to ensure that the period of time for the pension age change would be no more than 18 months compared with the previous timetable. For 81% of women affected by the 2011 change, it will be no more than 12 months.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The employment figures that have come out today are of course fantastic news, but I am wary about the economic volatility that could result from Brexit, with the potential for inflation to rise and the cost of living to go up for people on very modest wages. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to keep as many people in employment as possible? We have made the right decision on tax credits. May I urge her personally, ahead of the autumn statement, to look at the cuts that are still embedded in universal credit to ensure that she understands what they will do to people who are trying to get into work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the importance of getting people into work, which has a benefit not just in terms of families having an income. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record over the past six years of getting more and more people into work so that hundreds of thousands fewer households now have no work income coming in. That is extremely important. The point of universal credit is to ensure that the transition from benefits into work means that people do see a benefit if they get into the workplace. The previous system meant that some people said that they were better off on benefits. We want to see people in work and that is what the system is there to encourage.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We have been clear that women who have a third child as a result of rape would not be subject to the limit that is being considered in relation to benefits. I absolutely recognise that the hon. Lady’s point addresses concern about dealing with individuals who have been through the trauma of rape, and that is why the Government are taking their time to consider that. We are consulting at the moment and looking at how to ensure that we do this in absolutely the right way.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Given the increasing relevance of the Commonwealth for trade, will the Prime Minister give her personal support to the first ever meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers here in the UK next year? When she goes to India next month, will she commit to persuade Prime Minister Modi to attend the 2018 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to encourage all leaders to attend CHOGM when it takes place here in the United Kingdom. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are indeed looking at the possibility of trade deals in relation to the Commonwealth. I applaud that first ever meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers, which is an important step as we look to forge a new global role in the world, ensuring that we make a success of leaving the EU and trading our way around the world.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I recognise that this is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has raised concerns about West Cumberland hospital. The point of how we are approaching this is that decisions are taken at and generated from the local level. It is the local area that will be looking at the services that people need, and at ensuring that they can be provided and are safe for his constituents and those in other parts of Cumbria.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The tragic murder of one prisoner and the critical wounding of two others at Pentonville prison last night brings home the stark decline in safety in our prisons. Will the Prime Minister give the Secretary of State for Justice her full support in commissioning an immediate, thorough and complete review of the operation, management, capacity, leadership and resourcing of the National Offender Management Service, which has singularly failed to arrest this declining situation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a matter that was one of the first issues that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice raised with me: violence and safety in prisons. That is why my right hon. Friend is looking across the board at the action that needs to be taken. She has already announced extra money for more staff in prisons and recognises the importance of this particular issue.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I want to see every child getting the education that is right for them. I want every child to be able to get on as far as their talents and hard work will take them. That is why we need to increase the number of good schools in this country. If we look at the gap in attainment in grammar schools between those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who are not, we see that it is virtually zero—that is the not the same in other schools. I just say to the hon. Lady that it is wrong that we have a system in this country where a law prevents the opening or expansion of good schools. That is what we are going to get rid of.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister work with her Ministers and Secretaries of State to champion a reduction in the ivory trade and in the trade in the organs of endangered species throughout the world so that this country tries to lead by example?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. This is something the Government have been taking up, and I can assure her that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not only heard her representations, but promoted this as an issue that the Government will take up.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased to welcome the renaissance in the ceramics industry that the hon. Gentleman refers to. His constituency, of course, has a long-standing history of and tradition in ceramics. What are we doing? As we go through the negotiations for leaving the European Union, we will be ensuring that this country has the best possible access to trade with and operate within that European market. That is what people want and that is what we will deliver.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Many constituents have contacted me to express concern about anti-Semitism. I am sure that every Member of this House can agree that we should show zero tolerance of anti-Semitism, but does the Prime Minister also agree that we must ensure that all parties do not allow a situation to arise in which it appears that an environment is created where anti-Semitism is tolerated?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this House should send a very clear message that we will not tolerate anti-Semitism. I have been concerned about the rise in the number of incidents of anti-Semitism in this country. We should very clearly ensure that those incidents of anti-Semitism are properly investigated and dealt with, and that we give the clear message that we will not tolerate it. But that does have to be done by every single political party in this Chamber, and I say to the Leader of the Opposition that given the report of the Home Affairs Committee about anti-Semitism and the approach to anti-Semitism in the Labour party, he needs to think very carefully about the environment that has been created in the Labour party in relation to anti-Semitism.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
We are now just one month from the start of the new inquest into the Birmingham pub bombings. West Midlands police has set aside for itself a legal fund of £1 million, but as of today, the bereaved families have no legal funding. Prime Minister, this is a shameful state of affairs. Please intervene and show the Birmingham families the same compassion as was shown to the Hillsborough families.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman might be aware that the Birmingham families have been encouraged to apply—I believe they have applied—to the legal aid fund for exceptional funding. That was, as I understand it, what happened after the 7/7 bombings. The Home Secretary has made clear her expectation that funding will be provided. We are waiting for the decision from the legal aid fund, and we are hopeful that it will be a positive one.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Why attempt to build a new runway at Heathrow when we could deliver one at Gatwick in half the time, for half the cost and with a fraction of the environmental impact?
The Prime Minister
I assure my right hon. Friend that no decision has been taken on the site of airport expansion in the south-east. As she will know from her previous background, the Davies commission said that airport capacity in the south-east should be expanded and the Government accepted that argument. The Davies commission identified three sites, all of which it said would be credible and deliverable, and the Government will take a decision this month.
Mr Speaker
It is fitting that we finish with a question from Mr Gerald Jones.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other Members for their comments about the Aberfan disaster, and about the resilience and quiet dignity shown by the people of Aberfan? At 9.15 on Friday morning—the anniversary of the disaster—the people in that community and communities across Wales will mark the disaster with a minute’s silence. As the disaster affected communities right across the country, if not the world, will the Prime Minister support that minute’s silence being marked across the UK as well?
The Prime Minister
I know that the Secretary of State for Wales will be attending the memorial that will take place in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on Friday. It is appropriate that we all show our respect for those who lost their lives and for the families who suffered as a result of the Aberfan tragedy 50 years ago. As we said earlier, it was a terrible tragedy not just for individual families, but for a whole community, and it is right that we recognise that and mark it.
Petition
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I rise to present a petition regarding student season tickets on the Lakes Line on behalf of sixth-form students in Westmorland from Windermere, Staveley, Burneside and Kendal, calling for a fair price for rail travel to school.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that Northern Rail has taken a decision to remove post-16 students from the student season tickets system on the Lakes Line; further that students face a massive increase in the cost of travel, which will mean that the journey to Sixth Form in Kendal will become unaffordable for many; and further that an online petition on a similar topic has received 308 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Northern Rail to rethink the decision to remove post-16 students from the student season tickets system on the Lakes Line,
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001953]
Sale of Annuities
(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
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on why the Government have abandoned plans to allow savers to sell their annuities in return for a cash lump sum.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
This Government have taken a great step forward in giving more and more people freedom to choose how they use their pension savings when they retire. We have already seen more than 300,000 people choosing to access their pension flexibly since the reforms were introduced. Alongside our efforts to do that, we also said that we would look at how we could spread that flexibility to people locked into existing annuities. We consulted extensively with the industry and with consumer groups to explore whether we could put in place the right conditions for a market to develop to facilitate that idea.
Throughout our investigations, one of our very highest priorities was to establish whether people could get a good deal through such a market. In the course of our efforts to investigate the viability of a secondary market in annuities, two things became clear. First, without compromising on consumer protections there would be insufficient purchasers of these annuities to create a competitive market in which British pensioners could get a good deal. Secondly, pensioners trying to sell their annuities would also be likely to incur high costs in doing so.
This Government have made it very clear that we want this to be a country that works for everyone, and that includes making sure that everyone gets a high level of consumer protection. It has become clear, through our extensive research, that a secondary market would not be able to offer this. Rather than being to the benefit of British pensioners, it would instead be to their detriment. It is for that reason that we are not prepared to allow such a market to develop, and we will not be taking this policy further.
Greg Mulholland
No disrespect to the Minister, whom I like, but the Chancellor should have been here to answer this question, particularly given the disgraceful way in which the announcement was made.
The move towards pension freedoms was the flagship announcement in the Budget just two years ago, in 2014. Originally the brainchild of the former Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister Steve Webb, it was embraced by the former Chancellor and specifically included in the manifesto on which this Government were elected. Yet yesterday afternoon, the Government announced via the press, not via this House, that they were scrapping the whole deal. This is a huge U-turn, which was announced after clear lobbying by an industry that never really subscribed to it, and a failure by the Government to build a reasonable secondary annuity market. Of course it is right that protections are put in place to ensure that people are not exploited on the secondary annuities market, but there are tens of thousands of people trapped in poor-value annuities who are eager to be able to take advantage of the new freedoms. Based on the promises in this Government’s manifesto, many of them will already have been considering how to take advantage of the plans in order to release themselves from their annuity and invest their savings differently. This announcement will leave many people having to make different decisions about their retirement from those to which they were being directed—if, that is, they have even heard of the change, given the way that it was rushed through and the way it was announced by the Government.
Can the Minister say, first, when the decision was made to drop the new pension freedom plans? Secondly, why was this decision not announced to Parliament before it was announced to the media? Thirdly, what are the Government doing to inform those who may wish to cash in their annuity that they will no longer be able to do so? Fourthly, what assessment have the Government made of people’s change of behaviour in response to the freedom, and how will this affect their financial decisions?
The pensions freedom plan was about trusting people with their money. Clearly, this Government have decided that they no longer trust people. They owe an apology to those who have spent time and money examining their options for retirement, and I hope we get one today.
Simon Kirby
It is easy to wish to have the cake and eat it, as the Lib Dems regularly do. It is difficult being a Minister. Sometimes we have to make hard decisions, but on balance, the interests of the consumers, often older people and the most vulnerable in our society, have trumped the desire to further increase pensions flexibility. The hon. Gentleman is disingenuous. It was one element of our pension freedoms and, after extensive consultation, it transpired that it would not provide value for money. Which?, which is totally independent of Government, has said that
“it would have been wrong to move forward without assurances that consumers could get value for money and have the necessary protections”—
assurances and necessary protections protecting those most vulnerable people in our society.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not interrupt the Minister in his flow, but may I ask that from now on we avoid the use of the word “disingenuous” or “disingenuously”? There is an imputation of dishonour and we should avoid that. The Minister is a dextrous fellow with, I am sure, an extensive vocabulary and he can deploy some other term to get his point across. On the subject of those with dexterity and great vocabulary, I call Sir Desmond Swayne.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is the right decision for the circumstances, but does my hon. Friend think that there is any connection between poor value in the annuities market and the Bank of England’s monetary policy?
Simon Kirby
Mr Speaker, I acknowledge your sound advice, as ever, and apologise if I have been anything other than my usually well-behaved self.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) raises an interesting point, but this is about people, many of whom are older and more vulnerable, making the right choices, and the Government making sure that the market is there to support them. That is not the case, which is why we have changed tack.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
This is the latest of the many U-turns that the Government have made. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for securing this urgent question. Labour Members want to know why the Government did not do proper market analysis prior to the announcement. They were warned at the time. If they had done that analysis at the outset, they may have realised the chaos and confusion that such an announcement would cause for up to 500,000 pensioners across the country, who are already worried about their long-term future.
This U-turn on pensions comes in the same week as the Government have pushed forward with their proposals for a lifetime ISA, despite widespread cross-party concern about the impact of future public finances on personal retirement plans. In the UK pension market the consumer is unable to make an informed choice because of a lack of cost and performance data. We believe that it should be the role of the Government to provide those data. What will the Government do to assist with that process?
Like the hon. Member for Leeds North West, we would like to know when the Government decided to abandon the policy. Who made the final decision? Was there another interference by the Prime Minister in the previous Chancellor’s decisions? Who was consulted? How extensive was that consultation? The Government were warned. What assessment has been made of the pension market in general and the knock-on effects of this decision? What influence, if any, has the recent vote for Britain to leave the European Union had on this decision?
There is an indication that because of this decision, £900 million may be lost in the first two years in tax that would have come in as a result of people paying tax on the sale of their annuity. Where is that money going to come from? Is that not another black hole in the Government’s finances?
Simon Kirby
Let me deal with the points in reverse order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the autumn statement to see what the finances look like, but it became increasingly apparent that not only was it not a good deal for consumers—those vulnerable people who we care about—but it was unlikely to provide the kind of income that had first been expected. We consulted extensively with the industry and consumer groups. I had many conversations with the Department for Work and Pensions, and particularly with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions. The hon. Gentleman asks where information will be provided. The Government are introducing a new money advice service that will provide such information.
I shall finish with a quote from the Association of British Insurers, in whose interest the hon. Gentleman might suppose it was for us to continue with the policy. The ABI says:
“This is the right decision for the right reasons”
and that there were
“considerable risks for customers, including from unregulated buyers”.
We do not want to see unregulated buyers out there or vulnerable people affected.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for a market to work, buyers as well as sellers are needed? To try to create a market where there are not both is an impossibility, and to have done so would have led to a potential disaster for consumers.
Simon Kirby
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There were very few people interested in buying those products, which would have resulted in a very poor deal for customers. The market was not big enough to provide value for money and on that basis we decided not to proceed.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On that point, given that we now know that there was an absence of buyers in the market, where was the Government’s consultation before they offered their proposal? We cannot get away from the fact that this was a manifesto commitment from the Government. I welcome the U-turn; they have done the right thing, but why was the matter not brought to the House? Why did we read about it in the media?
Last April the Financial Conduct Authority said that there were concerns about the secondary market in annuities, which would mean
“a significant risk of poor outcomes for consumers”.
The regulator said:
“Annuities are inherently difficult for consumers to value, and consumers who will be able to participate in this market will include a higher proportion of older, more vulnerable consumers.”
We could see that. The FCA came out with that last April. Why has it taken so long for the Government to do the right thing? We recognise some of the concerns for consumers as a result of the pensions freedoms introduced. May we have a full review of the pensions freedom policy?
Simon Kirby
I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising that this is the right thing to do. It is a difficult decision and it is, as ever, a balance between two conflicting viewpoints. My job as a Minister at the Treasury is about making sure that consumers are protected, that industries are regulated sufficiently, and that there is the very best possible deal for customers. Withdrawing this product, which is aimed at many old and vulnerable consumers, is absolutely the right thing to do.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I know that the Minister has very bravely taken this decision to protect the more vulnerable pensioners who are suffering, but what will he and the Treasury be able to do to ensure that pensioners on very low incomes who are trapped in difficult annuities can escape those punishing regimes?
Simon Kirby
We are looking at an economy that works for everyone, including those pensioners on low incomes. The Treasury will be considering this very carefully, but my hon. Friend will have to wait until the autumn statement to hear how we are best placed to deal with this. However, those people are absolutely at the centre of our attention, and we will do all we can to help.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Of course, guarding against mis-selling is important, but does this announcement not represent two new problems? It is a problem, first, for those hundreds of thousands of pensioners who have been marched up the hill only to be marched back down again, and left uncertain about their financial options, but, secondly, for those other generations of potential savers who are baffled by pensions generally and who will find this mixed message—this chopping and changing—on flexibilities even more of a reason to feel sour towards the attractiveness of pensions? We have a savings crisis in this country, and the Government need far more consistency and a clearer policy.
Simon Kirby
None of us wants to see people being baffled, and none of us wants to see uncertainty, but at the end of the day we are surely better off making the right decision, which protects vulnerable consumers, rather than carrying on regardless. The hon. Gentleman is right that we all have a responsibility to educate and inform people throughout their lives about the importance of savings and pensions, and that is something the Government fully intend to continue doing.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I know that this is a difficult decision for my hon. Friend, because he feels passionately about pension freedoms. Can he assure the House, though, that every effort is now being made to ensure that pension providers fully co-operate with all other aspects of the Government’s wider pension freedoms, which have been so warmly welcomed around the country?
Simon Kirby
I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that I will do all I can to make sure that providers work closely with the Government to get the best possible deal for older people and indeed savers, including younger people—people who are perhaps not in the habit of saving or contributing to pensions. That is an important thing, and I am happy to pursue it with my full vigour.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I will ask the Minister a third time why this announcement was not made to Parliament before it was made to the media. Also, what is he going to do to inform people who may have intended to cash in their annuity, but who are now not going to be able to do so?
Simon Kirby
It is fair to say that there are often circumstances where information or announcements are market sensitive, and sometimes that drives how things are announced.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Given that these retirement annuities can form the bedrock of many people’s financial security, it is right that a decision is taken to secure the interests of those people rather than to press ahead purely because of a manifesto commitment. Will the Minister reassure me, though, about what work the Treasury is doing to ensure that people get a better deal on their annuities in the first place? For many people, looking to cash in their annuity in was about trying to deal with the bad deal they got on that annuity, not necessarily about wanting a lump sum.
Simon Kirby
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: two wrongs, sadly, do not make a right. The Government are committed to giving people pension freedoms so that they can choose what to do with their money, because that is the right choice to make, but, in this particular and individual circumstance, it was not the appropriate way forward.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
My constituent, Mr Anderson, contacted me and advised me that, despite the risks, he planned to take up the option of selling his annuity. I wrote to the Treasury and was assured only 19 days ago:
“The Government remains committed to delivering these proposals”.
Yesterday’s announcement is a betrayal of people such as Mr Anderson. I notice that the Minister did not answer the question a few minutes ago, so what exactly do the Government suggest that Mr Anderson and others do now?
Simon Kirby
Obviously, Mr Anderson is as important as all the other people who, no doubt, will be very interested in this announcement. It transpired through consultation that a very small percentage of people would be better off. We were looking at legislation that would oblige the Government to provide guidance and advice; in the vast—very vast—majority of cases, that advice would be that it would not be appropriate and in the consumer’s best interests to proceed. There is no easy answer, but at the end of the day, I am not going to allow vulnerable older people to take advantage of what may, superficially, seem a good deal, but what, in the long term, is a poor one.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
John Lawson, the head of retirement policy at Aviva, has said that one of the obstacles in the way of the secondary annuities market is the existence of statutory override clauses in annuity contracts. Has that played any part in the Government’s decision, and do they have any plans to at least look at passing legislation to deal with that?
Simon Kirby
That is certainly something we will be looking at. At the end of the day, many people got a poor deal on the way in; the last thing I want to do is to give them a doubly poor deal on the way out because the market is not big enough to provide value for money. If that means the option of reducing regulation, I am not a fan of that; regulation exists to support people and to help them make the right decisions.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The industry opposed this; millions of pensioners who were locked into low-paying annuities supported it. The Chancellor at the time knew all the problems, yet he claimed to be the champion of choice for the people. What has changed? Do the Government now believe that the nature of people they said would make good choices because they were sensible and had good advice has changed? Given that the Minister has removed choice, but not the problem, what does he intend to do for those who still find themselves locked in annuity arrangements that do not give them a sensible and fair income?
Simon Kirby
It is fair to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time was not in possession of all the information following the consultation. It was our intent, clearly, at the time to listen carefully to not only the industry but consumer groups, which we have done extensively. It is worth saying that we remain absolutely committed to all the other pension freedoms that we are introducing. This is a sensible way forward, and I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes it.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
This pop-up policy, which has now been popped down again, came from a Government who had a long-term economic plan, yet this policy has not survived very long. As has been indicated, the policy was a response to the bubbling sense of scandal that was there because people were stuck with meagre and marginal annuities, and it was a chance to give them something different. If the Minister is convinced that he is avoiding the new scandal that would have happened, of people ending up mis-selling their annuities, what is he doing about the original scandal of the meagre annuities that people are trapped in, which this policy was designed to respond to?
Simon Kirby
The hon. Gentleman is right in as far as that certainly was the intention of the policy. There is a long-term plan, because I am concerned about the long-term financial wellbeing of these older and vulnerable people, and it is important that they get the right deal and make the right decisions. That is why this suggestion, which is only one of many, is not appropriate to carry forward. It is not a pop-up policy; we have listened carefully, and we have made the right decision.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This U-turn has come about because of concerns about mis-selling and protecting consumers. The same risks and concerns must surely apply to the people who are currently exercising pension freedoms by cashing in their pension policies for lump sums. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, when are this Government going to have a coherent review of the existing pension freedoms legislation?
Simon Kirby
What happens in the secondary annuities market is very different from cashing in existing pensions for lump sums. To be clear to the House, selling an annuity would never have been the same as getting a refund on all the money that was put into the product or the original pension pot minus any payments made. Purchasers would have paid what they thought the income stream was worth. Without a competitive market, that income stream would have represented poor value for money, and people would have got a very poor settlement as a result.
Point of Order
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday at Foreign Office questions, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood):
“When can we expect full, independent, UN-led investigations of the thousands of airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen?”
In his reply, the Minister stated:
“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.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 667-668.]
However, I have discovered that on 16 September The Guardian newspaper stated that the independent Yemen data project
“records more than 8,600 air attacks between March 2015, when the Saudi-led campaign began, and the end of August this year.”
Moreover, Human Rights Watch lists dozens of airstrikes that have appeared to be “unlawfully indiscriminate” and have caused civilian casualties. Can you advise the House on whether the Minister needs to come to the Chamber and correct the inaccurate and rather dismissive reply that he gave to my hon. Friend yesterday?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to raise this point of order. What Members say in this House—I often have to make this point, but it bears repetition—is their individual responsibility. This applies to Ministers, and indeed to Opposition Front Benchers, as it does to other right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman believes that Ministers have been inaccurate in what they said yesterday—or, specifically, that the response to the shadow Foreign Secretary was inaccurate. He has made that view clear, and he has done so on the record. I am sure that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench, and that it will be relayed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am also sure that if the Foreign Secretary and the Minister feel that the House has been inadvertently misled, the relevant Minister will take swift steps to correct the record. It is only fair to say, as it is not for me to umpire on whether a clarification is required, that a Minister may take a view of the facts of the matter that differs from that of the hon. Gentleman. As to whether that is the case, we will have to await events.
Cosmetic Surgery (Standards of Practice)
Wednesday 19th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Cosmetic Surgery (Standards of Practice) Bill 2016-17 View all Cosmetic Surgery (Standards of Practice) 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
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision about the training, qualifications and certification of medical practitioners conducting cosmetic surgical procedures; to establish a code of practice for the provision of information to patients on the options and risks in relation to such procedures; to make provision about permissible treatments and the advertising of such treatments; and for connected purposes.
I became aware of the scandal around the £3.5 billion-a-year cosmetic surgery industry through a constituent, Dawn Knight, who in 2012 had cosmetic surgery on her eyes at Dolan Park hospital, run by Hospital Medical Group. The surgery was sold to her with a lifetime aftercare package to take care of any complications arising from the procedure. Following the surgery, Dawn was unable to close her eyes, and still, to this day, has to apply artificial tears to her eyes every two hours to stop them drying out. Dawn saw the surgeon who undertook the procedure, Arnaldo Paganelli, who refused to admit there was a problem. When she contacted Hospital Medical Group about the aftercare package, it simply pointed out a clause in her contract that said that treatments could be undertaken only if the surgeon agreed to it. No further help was offered, making a complete sham of the aftercare plan she was sold. As in similar cases, the NHS is now having to pick up the bill for Dawn’s ongoing care. Dawn’s case is not an isolated one. Many others have come forward since the publicity around it.
Although Hospital Medical Group promotes itself as a cosmetic surgery company, along with its associated companies, it is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is a facilities management company, simply providing the facilities where surgery takes place and marketing the procedures. When Dawn complained, she found out that her contract was not with Hospital Medical Group but with the surgeon who performed the procedure, and was told that it was her responsibility to check his General Medical Council registration and insurance. In Dawn’s case, her surgeon was a bankrupt, under-insured individual who was based in Italy and flew into the UK to work for Hospital Medical Group.
Herein lies the problem: at present, cosmetic surgery is not a defined surgical speciality in its own right. As the Department of Health has noted, the training within certain defined specialities such as plastic surgery, ear, nose and throat surgery, and eye surgery includes an aspect of cosmetic training, but no qualification is available for those who perform cosmetic surgery. In fact, the law allows any qualified doctor—they need not even be a surgeon—to perform cosmetic surgery without undertaking additional training or qualifications. My Bill aims to close this loophole. It has the support of the Royal College of Surgeons.
The Government and the Department of Health are aware of this situation. Following the PIP breast implant scandal, the Government asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the then NHS medical director, to undertake a review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions. That review was published in April 2013. It asked the Royal College of Surgeons to establish a cosmetic surgery inter-speciality committee to set standards for cosmetic surgery practice and training, and to make arrangements for formal certification of all surgeons regarded as competent to undertake cosmetic procedures, taking into account their training and experience.
The Department of Health requested the Law Commission to draft legislation, and this was done in 2014. The legislation was widely supported, but the coalition Government failed to enact it, as have the current Government. The Royal College of Surgeons would like only surgeons with appropriate skills and experience to undertake cosmetic surgery. I strongly support that, and I think that most members of the public would do so. To facilitate this, the GMC needs to be given legal powers to formally recognise additional qualifications or accreditations such as those that the Royal College of Surgeons is developing in cosmetic surgery. It should then be mandatory for those offering cosmetic surgery not only to have these but to make it clear to the public that they have them when advertising their services.
This is not the first time I have spoken about this case; I raised it in the House on 20 October 2015. I would like to put on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), the then Health Minister, who met me and my constituent, Dawn Knight.
Another area that the Bill aims to address is the marketing of cosmetic procedures. Some of the techniques that are used would be more appropriate for selling double glazing than cosmetic surgery, with its related risks. They include two-for-one offers, along with glossy brochures with no explanation of the potential risks of undertaking the surgery. The whole thrust of the advertising is to sell such procedures without any counselling or advice on whether it is appropriate for an individual to undergo them. Individuals who have already undergone surgery are often bombarded with more adverts, by email or on Facebook, despite the fact that that practice has been reported to the Advertising Standards Agency. Such aggressive marketing needs to be banned and a mandatory cooling-off period introduced once people have signed up to allow them to change their minds. I would go further and include mandatory counselling for individuals before they undertake any such procedure.
I want to address the way in which the companies that sell cosmetic surgery are structured. Dawn Knight responded to an advert from the Hospital Group, but her contract was with a company called the Hospital Medical Group Ltd. If we look at the Companies House register, we see that under the main Hospital Group holding there are eight different companies. In 2012-13, the group’s turnover was £44 million and dividends of some £7.5 million were paid to its directors. In 2016, the Hospital Medical Group was liquidated and its assets were sold to one of its parent companies. Some 80% of creditors on the liquidator’s list are solicitors representing former clients. One suspects that that structure was put in place to avoid any potential for former clients to sue the company for negligence.
With the liquidation, the lifetime guarantee that Dawn was sold is, like those sold to many other people, now completely worthless. Regulation is needed to ensure that guarantees offered on cosmetic surgery can actually be used to get redress. Despite the fact that a large number of women now have no recourse to law, the Hospital Group continues to operate and sell its products. The continuing care of individuals such as Dawn is falling on the NHS, while the group and its associated companies continue to make a profit. Guarantees must be backed up by insurance, so that if a company is liquidated, people can get legal redress.
The Prime Minister, in her speech to Conservative Party conference, said that the state should intervene where the market fails. We have here a classic example of the market not only failing but being used to exploit people, which is ruining their lives and costing the NHS millions of pounds a year. The Government are aware that action is needed in this area, and there is no reason why they should not act.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Holly Lynch, Judith Cummins, Claire Perry, Helen Jones, Fiona Mactaggart, Paula Sherriff, Mr Iain Wright, Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Mr Kevan Jones present the Bill.
Mr Kevan Jones 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 77).
Opposition Day
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rights of EU Nationals
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 250 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the contribution that nationals from other countries in the EU have made to the UK; and calls on the Government to ensure that all nationals from other countries in the EU who have made the UK their home retain their current rights, including the rights to live and work in the UK, should the UK exit the EU.
It is nearly four months since the EU referendum, and the long-term status of non-UK EU nationals living in the United Kingdom is still unclear, just as the Government are still without a plan or a negotiating strategy for the Brexit that they accidentally delivered. The status of millions of our fellow workers, friends and neighbours is uncertain. That is simply not good enough. Despite repeated requests, the Government have refused to guarantee, in the long term, the rights of EU nationals who have made their home in the United Kingdom. In the meantime, in England and Wales hate crime has soared and xenophobic rhetoric is common in the mainstream media and, sadly, sometimes in the mouths of Ministers.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I thought that the Government had clearly said that they had no wish to make anybody leave unless there were evictions from the continent. Is the hon. and learned Lady saying that continental countries are going to evict British citizens?
Joanna Cherry
The whole point of this motion is that human beings should not be used as bargaining chips in negotiation. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues think that the United Kingdom has so much to offer the European Union in its negotiations, why do they insist on using human beings as bargaining chips?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that many of the people we are talking about provide vital services and work in our public services? For instance, 6% of doctors working in the Welsh health service come from the EU. We face a crisis in that a third of our doctors may retire in the next few years, so we will need those people and additional qualified individuals to work in our health service. If the Government’s rhetoric is translated into policy, it will have a detrimental impact on the delivery of health services in my country.
Joanna Cherry
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The statistics are very similar in Scotland, where about 6.7% of staff in the NHS are EU nationals. The net result of the refusal to guarantee the long-term status of EU nationals, and of the xenophobic rhetoric and hate crime across the United Kingdom, is that many EU nationals are living with considerable stress and worry. We all receive letters from them as their constituency MPs. Damage has been done to the British economy and, importantly, to our international reputation.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
My hon. and learned Friend will undoubtedly have read the disgraceful comments in some quarters of the press this morning by a Tory MP who suggested that some child refugees should have to undergo dental checks to confirm their age before gaining passage to the UK from Calais—as if those children had not been through enough. Leaving aside the fact that those children have a legal right to family reunification here—
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) will resume his seat. We will be with him in a moment. There is a point of order from Mr David T.C. Davies.
David T. C. Davies
I am the Conservative MP who has just been referred to. This is not a matter that is before us today. I wanted to speak about EU migrants, being married to one myself. If the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) wants to raise a completely unrelated matter, will I be able to answer that in the speech that I hope you will call me to make later on, Mr Speaker, even though it has nothing to do with this debate?
Mr Speaker
I did not judge the remark to be disorderly, although it needs to be made briefly. I did not and do not think it was disorderly, but I give the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) the assurance, which he is entitled to seek, that he will have an opportunity in his remarks to respond as he thinks fit. No one should deny him that opportunity. Briefly, Mr Gray; let us hear it.
Joanna Cherry
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is incumbent on all of us in public life to be mindful of the language we use, particularly when we are talking about refugees who are children—the definition of a child being someone under the age of 18.
Joanna Cherry
I will make some progress. Those of us who have actually been to Calais, met some of these child refugees—some of them are young men, but they are still children—and seen them separated from their families and in tears found the comments to which my hon. Friend referred deeply distasteful.
Joanna Cherry
I am going to make some progress.
Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will attend her first European Union summit in Brussels. I very much hope that it will not be her last. Britain’s position on EU migrants will be a central issue. Now is the opportunity for the UK Government to do the right thing, so the Scottish National party calls on this House today to recognise the contribution that EU nationals have made to the UK. We also call on the Government to ensure that all EU nationals who have made this country their home retain their current rights, including the rights to live and work in this country, should the UK exit the European Union.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I asked the Home Secretary how an EU citizen demonstrates that they have lived in the UK for five or more years, how citizenship is claimed after six years, which Department will be responsible for confirming the right to remain, what citizenship they will be able to claim, what certification of these rights will be provided and what the estimate is of the costs of going through this process. In reply to that parliamentary question, I was told:
“The Home Office has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period.”
Is it not time we got our act together as a country and gave people who have given their lives and their taxes to this country the security of knowing that they can remain?
Mr Speaker
Order. These are all very serious and worthy interventions, but they suffer from the disadvantage of being too long. This must not continue. We must try to restore some sort of order to this debate. I do not want to embarrass him unduly, but if Members would model themselves in terms of brevity on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—or on the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—they would serve the House well.
Joanna Cherry
I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). Is this not symptomatic of the complete failure of various Departments to answer any questions arising from the strategy they will presumably need to adopt as a result of the result on 24 June?
Joanna Cherry
I will give way in a moment.
To pick up on the hon. Lady’s point, I am delighted that Scottish National party Members have the full support of Labour party colleagues for the motion. We are very happy to work with them as part of a cross-party, progressive alliance, which I am sure will include some Government Members, to protect the rights of EU nationals across the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joanna Cherry
I am spoilt for choice, but I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
Mr Harper
Briefly, I completely agree with the first part of the hon. and learned Lady’s motion, which I have read very carefully, in which she recognises the contribution made by EU nationals, but does she not accept that the first responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and the Prime Minister is to British citizens, more than 1 million of whom are in European Union countries? Their rights must be protected, but her motion is silent on their interests.
Joanna Cherry
It is of course open to the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward such a motion. This motion is about protecting the rights of EU nationals in the United Kingdom, which the United Kingdom Government are in a position to do.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
My husband is a UK citizen based in Germany, where he runs a very small business. He was horrified by the tone of his Government in looking after his rights as a person who is working and has established himself abroad. He said to me, “Do they not understand that threatening Europe is not the best way to open negotiations?” I merely said, “No, they don’t.”
Joanna Cherry
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. As I have said, if, as we are constantly told by the Brexiteers, having trade agreements with Britain is such a fantastic option for the other 27 member states of the European Union, why must the Government keep individuals up their sleeve as bargaining chips?
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I note in passing that if the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) wanted to make his point, he could have tabled an amendment, but he chose not to do so. Is not the right thing to look after our own communities, and EU nationals are essential to the functioning of many businesses and services in our communities?
Joanna Cherry
Absolutely. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The purpose of the motion is to make sure that we do not get into the very unfortunate position of having people living, working and paying taxes in the United Kingdom who have lesser rights and status than others. That would be deeply invidious and, if I may say so as a Scottish nationalist, I would have thought it was contrary to the British tradition.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Equally, there will be British citizens working abroad whom we do not want to suffer from having any lesser rights. Would the hon. and learned Lady go into the negotiating chamber armed only with the glow of the good will and the moral high ground as against the hard-headedness of her interlocutors in the negotiations?
Joanna Cherry
I am very happy and proud to say that I and my Scottish National party colleagues would never go into the negotiating chamber using individual human beings as bargaining chips.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joanna Cherry
I am going to make a little progress, and I will then give way.
I use the phrase “bargaining chips” advisedly, because it is a source of shame to this House and to the United Kingdom that the Prime Minister and several of her Ministers—including the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and, I am particularly ashamed to say, the Secretary of State for Scotland—have hinted at using EU nationals living in this country as bargaining chips. Indeed, at the Conservative party conference, which we all so much enjoyed watching on television, the Secretary of State for International Trade went so far as even to compare European Union nationals with “cards” in a game.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The hon. and learned Lady is talking about European Union citizens being used as bargaining chips. Does she recall that in 2014 Nicola Sturgeon threatened to strip EU nationals of their right to remain in an independent Scotland? As reported in The Scotsman newspaper, she said:
“There are 160,000 EU nationals from other states living in Scotland, including some in the Commonwealth Games city of Glasgow. If Scotland was outside Europe, they would lose the right to stay here.”
Who is being used as bargaining chips there?
Joanna Cherry
May I in the gentlest and friendliest way counsel the hon. Gentleman against taking advice, first, from the Conservative party in Scotland, and secondly, from The Scotsman newspaper, which is frankly not what it was when I was a girl?
Several hon. Members rose—
Joanna Cherry
I will just finish responding on that point.
There is absolutely no question that the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, or her distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), ever threatened EU nationals with not being part of Scottish society. Our policy has been clear for many, many years: we want an independent Scotland in the European Union, with equal rights for all living in Scotland. We are quite clear on that. This debate is about making the UK Government be clear about having equal rights for all across the United Kingdom.
Charlie Elphicke
I have listened to the hon. and learned Lady’s speech with care. She has been pressed time and again to say whether she would defend the rights of citizens of this nation who are living abroad, and time and again she has refused to do so. I will give her one more opportunity. Would she stand up for Britain and British citizens and their rights around the globe?
Joanna Cherry
Yes, of course I would, but I am not going to be sidetracked on an issue that is not the subject of this debate. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were so agitated about this aspect of the argument, they were free to table an amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) said. I am delighted to hear that they are so concerned about the welfare of British citizens in Europe, which has been put at risk by the Brexit vote, but I would like them to extend the same concern to EU nationals living in the United Kingdom. That is what the motion is about, and no amount of obfuscation from Government Members is going to sidetrack me.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that we can negotiate in two ways—positively or negatively? If, on 24 June, we had graciously said that everyone who has settled here can live here, that approach would have been returned. When I met the German ambassador, it had not occurred to the Germans to throw out British citizens. That idea has arisen only because we are threatening their citizens.
Joanna Cherry
I am now going to try to make some progress, as I have taken a lot of interventions. I will be very happy to put Government Members right on a few points later, but at this stage I want to make some progress.
We would not expect the 1.2 million UK citizens who live in other EU countries to be treated as bargaining chips, and we would not expect the Governments of other EU countries to preside over a shocking rise in xenophobic hate crime, so the UK Government must accept their share of responsibility for what is going on in this country at the moment and stop fuelling division.
Mr Clarke
I entirely share the hon. and learned Lady’s sentiment that we all want to reassure people who are here, so we must be careful not to arouse a sense of insecurity among them. I do not know of any Member of this House in any party who wishes to remove EU nationals who are now lawfully here and making their lives here. I have never met a European politician from any country—I have met quite a lot of them—who wishes to remove British nationals who have settled down there, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) pointed out. We are having a rather artificial debate here. Would it not be best if this were all sorted out at the summit tomorrow, with the leaders quickly agreeing among themselves that neither side would seek, in any negotiations, to remove nationals lawfully living in their respective territories?
Joanna Cherry
I always listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with great care, because he has made an amazing contribution to the debate about the European Union over the years. However, this is not an artificial debate. I hate to disillusion him, but a Conservative and Unionist party colleague of his in Scotland, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, suggested recently in a press release sanctioned by the Conservative and Unionist party that EU citizens living in Scotland should not have the same right to participate in civil society as others—for the record, that person was referring to a French national who lives in Scotland and was previously a Member of the Scottish Parliament—so it is a very real concern.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joanna Cherry
I will take more interventions later, but I would like to make some progress as I am conscious that many other Members want to speak.
Scotland is an inclusive and outward-looking society. We recognise the immense contribution that migrants make to our economy, society and culture. We firmly believe that similar views are held by many throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. We appeal to the UK Government to listen to the voices from across the UK of those who do not want EU nationals living in the United Kingdom used as bargaining chips in the Brexit negotiations. This Union of nations should be better than that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I think we can agree that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is right to say that no one in this House would want to see EU nationals who are living and working here expelled. The point is that there are people out there who have been emboldened by the current political climate who want to see EU nationals living here expelled, and worse. The sort of signal that the hon. and learned Lady is calling for, which I support, would be very powerful in saying that the views of those people are wholeheartedly rejected by all right-thinking people.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that point; I am also grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, of Plaid Cymru for the motion.
Joanna Cherry
I intend to make some progress.
I will say a little about the valuable contribution that EU migrants make to our society across the UK. As we all know, about 3 million EU migrants live in the United Kingdom, about 173,000 of them in Scotland. Data produced during the EU referendum show that, contrary to popular myth, EU migrants to the UK make a net contribution to the economy. Indeed, the EU citizens who come to live and work in Scotland are critical to key sectors of our economy. More than 12% of the people who work in the agricultural sector in Scotland are EU migrants, and 11% of people who work in our important food, fish and meat processing sector are EU citizens. There are two major universities in my constituency, Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot-Watt; they would be gravely affected by a decrease in the number of EU nationals choosing to study, research and teach in Scotland.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Lady is making a wonderful case for the contribution that EU nationals make to Scottish and British public life; we must be much more confident in making that case. Does she agree that we should consider not just the contribution that they make, but in which particular sectors, such as the one she is about to come to in her speech? For example, 25% of the staff of the Edinburgh University King’s Buildings, our world-renowned science institute, are EU nationals. They need the certainty that they can stay so that Edinburgh can stay in the top 100 universities around the world.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman and I are privileged to have students and academics from three very fine universities spread across our adjoining constituencies. I am sure that, like me, he spent the summer meeting those academics and students. Shortly after the EU referendum I was informed by the principal of Edinburgh Napier University that within days of the referendum she had been advised of potential staff members from other EU countries withdrawing from job offers at universities across Scotland. When I met her academic staff and those from Heriot-Watt University over the summer, they expressed similar concerns about how the quality of their teaching and research could be undermined if the position of EU migrants in Scotland were not guaranteed. I have no doubt that that is the same across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Charlie Elphicke
How EU citizens feel about remaining in the UK is a really important point. I have not heard a single Member on the Government Benches say that they want anyone to leave at all. The issue is being raised only by the SNP and the Labour party. I very gently say to the hon. and learned Lady that she should be aware, when she makes such cases for political reasons, of the concern that she sows—concern that should not be felt by any EU citizen in this nation.
Joanna Cherry
I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or the mail that he receives, but SNP Members are all receiving a considerable weight of mail and emails from concerned EU citizens. I am sure that Members on the Opposition Benches will speak to the same later in the debate. This is not fearmongering—and believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker, we in the SNP are experts on fearmongering having been on the receiving end of it during the 2014 referendum.
Joanna Cherry
I am not going to give way; I will make some progress. This is a valid issue about which many constituents are very concerned. We would be failing in our responsibilities if we did not raise it, no matter how embarrassing it is for those on the Government Benches.
I want to get back to the contribution that migrants make to our economy. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has already mentioned the NHS. As he said, 6% of doctors in Wales are EU migrants; it is just under 7% of doctors in Scotland. The British Medical Association and the Scottish Government say that 5% of the total NHS workforce were born in other EU countries. Put bluntly, our NHS would struggle to cope without them.
There are very valid concerns that pushing EU nationals to leave because of uncertainty about their future would have a devastating impact on the NHS, the hospitality and agriculture sectors, higher education and science, all of which rely heavily on labour from the EU. I also share the concerns raised by the Trades Union Congress, which has said that the longer we leave EU workers uncertain about their future, the greater the likelihood that they will leave, creating staffing shortages that will particularly negatively affect our public services. That will serve only to increase the concerns felt by those who voted to leave the EU in order to increase resources for public services—and there is not much sign of that happening, is there?
Mr Nuttall
Talking of uncertainty, as the hon. and learned Lady was just then, may I ask her about the last few words of the motion? Why does it say
“should the UK exit the EU”?
Why is it “should”?
Mr Nuttall
The reality is that 17.4 million people voted for this country to leave the European Union and we are going to leave. There is no “should” about it; that word should surely be “when”.
Joanna Cherry
I do not think I can answer the intervention better than my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in Scotland, by a huge majority, we voted to remain a member of the EU. The SNP will do everything in its might to ensure that the wishes of the Scottish people are respected.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Lady makes a very powerful case. Am I right in saying that all she is seeking to do in this debate is to ensure there is clarity? The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that nobody in this House would like to see any EU national leave the country. Would it not be the best possible course of action at the end of the debate if the Minister were just to say that these rights are granted?
Joanna Cherry
I could not have put it better or more succinctly. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
I mentioned earlier the phenomenon of the rise in hate crime across England and Wales since the referendum. Home Office statistics published just over a week ago show that hate crimes have soared by 41% in England and Wales. I suggest that this is a symptom of the negative and xenophobic rhetoric used by some—not all—in the lead-up to the referendum. This has had a major effect in legitimising hate crime on the part of a small but violent and vocal minority.
Many of us were very concerned about some of the rhetoric that came out of the Conservative and Unionist party conference in Birmingham the other week. This is not just a concern of the SNP. Concern has also been raised by other Members and by international human rights bodies. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance have all expressed concern about the spike in hate crime in England and Wales.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this situation requires leadership and a Prime Minister who will advocate in the best interests of every single individual in this country, EU national or otherwise? Will she share with me support for the First Minister’s statement on inclusivity and the need for leadership in this debate?
Joanna Cherry
I do share that. Indeed, the purpose of this motion is to invite the United Kingdom Government to follow the lead that the First Minister and the Scottish Government have shown in that respect.
Ian Murray
I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving way again. Again, I emphasise that she is making a compelling speech. Do the Government not have to look at the will of this House, which in July voted by 245 votes to two to do the very thing for which her motion asks? Rather than making xenophobic speeches at the Conservative party conference, they should abide by the will of this House and do what this House has voted for already.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the debate on this issue on 6 July. The Government have failed to respect the outcome of the vote in that debate.
Returning to the international concern about what is going on in the United Kingdom, the Polish ambassador gave evidence yesterday to the Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee. He said that he had
“noticed an increase in xenophobic behaviour”
in Britain since the Brexit vote. He expressed concern about the uncertainty being caused to Polish nationals living in the UK. So there we have another non-SNP voice talking about the very concern that has made us bring forward the motion today.
I am pleased that we have not seen any increase in hate crime north of the border, but we must always be vigilant to ensure that hate crime is made unacceptable across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I have been a remainer for a very long period of time. I have come to the Chamber and listened very intently to what the hon. and learned Lady is saying. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that nobody disagrees with what she is saying, and no one in this House disagrees with protecting EU nationals as well as we protect our British citizens. From one remainer to another, may I just ask why—I would have voted for it—you did not put this in your motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman definitely, in everything he has just said, did not mean me. He has got the point without my saying anything further.
Joanna Cherry
The motion is as framed advisedly. If Conservative Members felt it could have been improved, it was open to them to bring forward an amendment. We would have looked at it carefully, as we always do. I am now going to make a little bit more progress. I am conscious that I have taken a lot of interventions and I want to wind up fairly soon.
I want to say a little bit about what the Scottish Government have been doing since the referendum. Members will recall that immediately after the referendum result the First Minister moved very quickly to give EU citizens in Scotland reassurance that
“the Scottish Government is pursuing every possible option to protect Scotland’s position in Europe and, by extension, the interests of the people from across the European Union who live here.”
Indeed, at an event unprecedented in my constituency in August, the First Minister held an open question and answer session with EU nationals. I can tell Conservative Members that it was extremely well attended by EU nationals living and working in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland. They had many concerns and questions for the First Minister about their status in the United Kingdom following the vote. At our conference last weekend, the SNP passed a motion condemning xenophobia and prejudice in all its forms, making it very clear, in no uncertain terms, that international citizens are welcome in Scotland. In her closing address to the SNP conference in Glasgow on Saturday, the First Minister talked of the “uniting vision” of
“an inclusive, prosperous, socially just, open, welcoming and outward-looking country”
and contrasted that with the xenophobic rhetoric of the UK Government. The difference between the SNP conference and the Tory conference could not be starker.
I am very well aware that the desire for inclusivity, openness and being welcome and outward-looking is not the preserve of the SNP and the Scots. It is shared by many people across these islands. It is about time that Conservative Members lived up to the good aspects of British tradition and the good aspects of our reputation abroad, and stopped undermining them by encouraging the sort of xenophobia we have seen in recent months as a result of some of their rhetoric. [Interruption.] I am absolutely delighted to get such a reaction.
Dr Murrison
I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving way. Nobody is suggesting that anybody is going to be ejected from the United Kingdom. She is simply setting hares running. Does she understand and admit that there is a layer of complexity that she has completely ignored? If she is giving rights to people, which I think we would all accept, what effective date is she going to choose? What then happens when people go outside the UK and seek to return? All these things are also relevant to British nationals, on behalf of whom the Government have to negotiate.
Joanna Cherry
I must admit to deriving some satisfaction from the fact that my speech is touching such a raw nerve with those on the Government Benches. What I would say to Conservative Members is that actions and rhetoric have consequences, and these are the consequences of some of their actions and rhetoric.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has often said that Scotland’s problem is not immigration but emigration. We in Scotland would like immigration powers to be granted to Scotland in recognition of the differing needs across the United Kingdom, and the fact that in Scotland we require immigrants to help to boost our economy and skills, particularly in remote areas. Both Australia and Canada pursue sub-national immigration policies that respond to the needs of skills and expertise across the regions within their states. Now is the chance for the United Kingdom to do likewise, but I shan’t hold my breath.
To be fair, even many leavers during the campaign, said:
“there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK.”
Speaking on Radio 4, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who co-chaired the campaign to leave the EU, said:
“I think it would be good for the British Government to take the initiative, say that we will protect EU citizens’ rights, and then expect the same for UK citizens in the rest of the EU to be similarly protected.”
So there we have the answer to the question raised by Government Members. She went on to say:
“One of the duties of politicians is to be humane and when we deal with people’s lives, I think to show that we are open, we are a welcoming country, that we simply decided to leave a political institution called the European Union, that doesn’t mean we are ignoring people’s rights.”
It is not often in recent months that I have found myself in agreement with the right hon. Lady, but on this occasion she is right: if the British Government do the right thing, take the initiative and say that they will protect EU citizens’ right, they could hope for a reciprocal gesture towards British citizens abroad, about whom we are all so concerned. It is a question of basic humanity—human beings should not be used as bargaining counters.
To conclude, I do not believe that this failure to reassure the EU nationals living in the United Kingdom represents the best traditions of these islands. Much of what underlies that failure and, I believe, the rise in hate crime, is misinformation put about during the leave campaign. That is due also to a failure of leadership by the previous Prime Minister and many in the remain campaign to articulate the truth about the benefits that migration and EU migration bring to the UK. Sadly, that failure of leadership is being perpetuated by this new Government, as they spin rudderless in the tailwind of Brexit.
Now is the time to put things right, so today the SNP—with the support of others, for which we are very grateful—calls on the Government to provide a cast-iron guarantee for EU citizens who have made the UK their home; to reject and to continue to work on tackling the rise of xenophobia, which has been confirmed by the Home Office for England and Wales; to recognise that the UK-wide blanket approach to immigration policy is not working and disregards the national, regional and demographic differences across the UK; and, most of all, to reassure all those who choose to make Scotland and the UK their home, that their rights will be honoured, that they are welcome to remain here and that their vital contributions are valued by all of us. Until that commitment is given, people will have the sort of worry and uncertainty that leads them to flock to events such as that organised by the First Minister in Edinburgh, and to write emails to all of us on a regular basis.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
There are many limits to my capabilities, and one of those is the inability to be in two places at the same time. I apologise if I have to dash off at the conclusion of my remarks to give evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will wind up the debate and pass on any comments particularly directed at me.
My job this afternoon is to reassure the House of our aspirations to protect the interests of EU citizens living in the UK and to counter some of the scaremongering that we have just heard. When I read the motion on the Order Paper, I was concerned and thought that there was a typographical error whereby the word “should” had been substituted for the word “when”. The fact of the matter is, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that Brexit means Brexit, and we are determined to carry out the wishes of the British people to leave the European Union. The negotiations that take place will be to secure the best possible deal.
As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said in the Opposition day debate last week, the Government are determined that
“Parliament will be fully and properly engaged in the discussion on how we make a success of Brexit.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 326.]
I am therefore pleased that the House has the opportunity to debate this aspect of our future relationship with the European Union.
There are over 3 million European Union nationals currently living in the UK. They make a vital contribution to important aspects of our economy and public services, not least in the NHS and care sector.
Keith Vaz
I thank the Minister for providing us with the figure of 3 million. However, some EU nationals will have arrived without passports, and those coming from Romania or Italy would have travel documents in order to enter the United Kingdom. How is the Minister’s figure a genuine one, given that he could not know precisely how many people are here?
Mr Goodwill
That is certainly one aspect of the negotiations that we would need to explore. Indeed, the security aspects of some of these travel documents are not as robust as passports that have the biometric data that is so important to ensure that people’s identity is clear when they are crossing borders.
Keith Vaz
I am not raising the issue of identity, which is, of course, important but a separate issue. My point is that when an EU national comes here—for example, a Romanian or an Italian—with a travel document instead of a passport, it is not stamped. EU citizens do not get their passports stamped. Is the Minister basing the 3 million figure on those who have acquired national insurance numbers, namely those in work, or is it based on some other data? That is what I want to know; it is not a security issue.
Mr Goodwill
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The 3 million figure can only be an estimate, particularly as exit checks have been introduced only recently. Although we might know who has come into the country, historically we were not aware of who had left. There are a number of ways of compiling the figures, including national insurance numbers, but there are other ways, too.
Charlie Elphicke
A few moments ago, the Minister was speaking warmly of the immense contribution made by EU nationals in the UK. Is he aware of any Conservative Member who is saying that EU citizens should leave this country, or is it purely coming from the other side?
Mr Goodwill
I think I have made the point previously that the only quote I have seen that has in some way threatened EU nationals was one from The Scotsman dated 14 July 2014, which referred to a specific threat that if Scotland was not allowed the join the European Union as an independent country, there would be a threat to the status of those people. If SNP Members are concerned about the accuracy of reports in The Scotsman, perhaps I could draw their attention to the official record of the Scottish Parliament’s Health and Sport Committee dated 27 September 2016—quite recently.
Mr Goodwill
Let me make the point, after which the hon. Gentleman can have his try.
At a session of the Health and Sport Committee in Holyrood, Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, said that in response to the Brexit, the Scottish Government were looking at including additional questions on the workforce survey to try to gather more information about whether people are EU nationals or indeed where they come from more generally, and that that would be helpful. Following that, Sarah Gledhill, a Scottish Government official, confirmed that they were looking at adding additional questions to workforce surveys as a matter of urgency. Who is using whom as a political bargaining chip?
Stewart Hosie
I think workforce planning is a fantastic idea. On the quote from The Scotsman, I have the article with me. It is a very small article. The point that the then Deputy First Minister was making was that if Scotland were to be pulled out of the EU against its will, the rights of EU citizens might, of course, be put at risk. Lo and behold, having been pulled out of the EU against their will, the rights of EU citizens are being put at risk! The Minister could end this today. Can he guarantee that the rights of EU citizens will be protected, and will he stop pandering to the attitudes of the United Kingdom Independence party, which wants to use people as bargaining chips?
Mr Goodwill
Let me see what I can do. As Madam Deputy Speaker knows, my middle name is “Reasonable”, and I think we need to be a bit more reasonable and not indulge in scaremongering. Many EU citizens watching this debate will be unnecessarily concerned about some of the rhetoric that we have just heard.
The Government have been clear that they want to protect the status of EU nationals resident in the UK. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in other EU member states are not protected in return. The Government have provided repeat assurances on this point, and their position has not changed. I am sorry that the SNP has not included that reassurance in their motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Goodwill
Let me make a little progress, if I may.
I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government have also been clear that the timeframe for resolving this issue is to address it as part of a wider negotiation on the UK’s exit from the EU, to ensure the fair treatment of British citizens—including those from Scotland, by the way—living in other EU countries. Over 1 million British citizens have built their lives elsewhere in Europe, and they are counting on us to secure their future. We simply want a fair deal for EU nationals in the UK and British citizens in the EU. That is a sensible approach, and it is the one we will take. As the House is aware, the Government have committed to invoking article 50 by the end of March 2017, once they have clear objectives for the Brexit negotiations.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
This is becoming increasingly baffling to me, I am afraid. I understand that the Minister is proposing to ask us to vote against the motion, but what he has just said confirms that the motion coincides exactly with the committed aim of the Government, which is to seek to ensure that all EU nationals who are living and working here now can be reassured about their status. If we let the motion go through, the chances of some proposal from the continent that British nationals should be expelled is almost nil. Of course we might have to revisit the thing, but even then we would not want to take reprisals against wholly innocent people who are contributing to our economy here. Should we not get on to the next motion and stop splitting hairs in this way, given that we are all agreed on the objectives?
Mr Goodwill
My right hon. and learned Friend has made a perfectly reasonable point. The only problem that the Government have with the motion is that it does not go far enough, in that it does not include the rights of British citizens living in other EU member states, which we would demand to be protected in return. It is impossible for us to support the motion, because that reassurance is not contained in it.
I fully appreciate the importance of giving certainty to EU citizens who have built a life here in the United Kingdom. As I have already said, they should be reassured that we are working on the basis that we want to protect those people’s status in UK law beyond the point at which we leave the EU.
Lyn Brown
As the Minister knows, I am very fond of him—[Interruption.]. It is true; it is a guilty secret. However, I am genuinely wondering why he has not responded to the question asked a moment ago by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Why are we still debating this issue, given that the Government clearly agree with the motion?
Mr Goodwill
I have made it crystal clear, I hope, that the motion does not go far enough because it does not extend the protections that SNP Members want for EU citizens here in the UK to British citizens, including Scottish citizens—people from Stranraer, Montrose and Edinburgh—who are living and working elsewhere in the EU and who require reciprocal protection. That is all we are saying. If the SNP Members had included that in their motion, we would have been more than happy to support it, but this is a fatal omission.
Mr Harper
There is another reason why I think that my hon. Friend is right to be both reasonable and cautious. As a former Immigration Minister, knowing the difficult challenges that he faces, I suggest that one of the important things that the House must do in order to deliver certainty is use very clear language. Many immigration matters go to court. Referring to people who have made their home here does not make clear whether they are people who have been here for five years, 10 years or five minutes. That description also excludes the thousands of EU nationals who fall within a group that I do want to leave the United Kingdom—the thousands of EU nationals who currently reside in Her Majesty’s prisons having committed criminal offences, and whom I want the Government to be able to remove from this country at the end of their sentences.
This matter is complicated. It is not straightforward. I urge my hon. Friend to continue to be reasonable and careful, in order to get this right and provide the certainty that is necessary. The position is not as simple as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) makes out.
Mr Goodwill
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue is much more complex than it is sometimes painted, and we need to engage in the negotiations with that in mind.
We intend to reach an agreement as soon as possible, but the fact remains that there needs to be an agreement, and I strongly believe that it would be inappropriate to lay down unilateral positions. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to do so. In the meantime, as the Government have made clear on numerous occasions—I will repeat it again today—until the UK leaves the EU, there will be no changes in the circumstances of European nationals in the UK. They will continue to have to have the same rights under EU law that they had before the referendum.
As I have said, however, this issue is also about British citizens living and working in other EU member states and exercising their treaty rights. The Prime Minister has made clear that, through the negotiations, we are seeking to secure the best deal for Britain, and that deal rightly includes protecting the status of British citizens who are living, working and studying elsewhere in the EU. It is disappointing that the motion makes no reference to those British citizens. The Government are therefore unable to set out a definitive position now: that must be done following an agreement with the EU. Those EU nationals who are worried about their current status can have the Government’s complete reassurance that their right to enter, work, study and live in the UK remains unchanged. They continue to be welcome here.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I share the Minister’s aspiration to protect the rights of UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, but may I suggest that the best way to achieve that end would be to make a commitment to EU citizens living here, thus creating an atmosphere in which positive negotiations on other matters might take place?
Mr Goodwill
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, while this will be a negotiation of the willing on both sides, other complex issues, such as those identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), will need to be worked out. Immigration is a complicated matter. However, I hope that, following what I have said today, EU citizens who are living and working here, exercising their treaty rights and contributing to the industries of our country we know that they make a fantastic contribution to, for instance, agriculture and the hospitality industry—will be reassured that we will seek to protect their status, while at the same time seeking to protect the status of UK citizens living and working elsewhere in the EU.
The Prime Minister has said in numerous statements that there will be no immediate changes in the circumstances of EU nationals. In addition, let me draw the House's attention to the recent confirmation by the Department for Education that EU students applying for places at English universities or further education institutions in the 2017-18 academic year will continue to be eligible for student loans and grants for the duration of their courses.
Given that it is in the interests of all interested parties to protect the rights of their citizens once the UK exits the EU, we are confident that both EU and British citizens will be protected through a reciprocal arrangement following discussions. As I have said, I want to be able to conclude this matter as quickly as possible once negotiations begin, but there is a balance to be struck between transparency and good negotiating practice. Any attempt to pre-empt our future negotiations would risk undermining our ability to secure protection for the rights of British citizens living in the EU, and that is why we are unable to support the motion.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister is now well established in his new role, but let me take this opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). I look forward to working with him and the rest of the team in the years ahead.
I am grateful to the SNP for bringing this issue back to the House. For the avoidance of any doubt—if the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) were still in the Chamber, I would say that this applies particularly to him—I should make it clear that Opposition Members accept the result of the referendum. We simply want to ensure that our departure from the EU takes place on the best possible terms for the UK. As one of my colleagues said during last week’s Opposition day debate, the British people voted to come out; they did not vote to lose out. Providing guarantees for EU nationals now is part of securing the best deal for the UK. That is why we made it the topic of an Opposition day debate just two weeks after the referendum, and why we support the motion moved so ably today by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
Back in July, as now, it was clear that the Government did not have a plan. They had no plan for what Leave would look like, and no plan for the 3 million EU nationals who are living, working and studying in our country. During that debate, however, one of the leading leave campaigners rightly pushed for certainty on the issue. He said:
“I would like to put on record what I think has been said already—that countless times the Vote Leave campaign gave exactly this reassurance to everybody from EU countries living and working here, and it is very, very disappointing that that should be called into question. I think it is absolutely right to issue the strongest possible reassurance to EU nationals in this country, not just for moral or humanitarian reasons, but for very, very sound economic reasons as well. They are welcome, they are necessary, they are a vital part of our society, and I will passionately support this motion tonight.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 939.]
Let us give credit where it is due. After making that contribution, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) not only talked the talk but walked the walk, as did the overwhelming number of Members who voted for the motion to guarantee EU nationals the right to remain here. I hope that now that he is Foreign Secretary he is making the case even more strongly, because I guess in his new role at the Foreign Office he is learning the art of diplomacy. [Interruption.] Yes, he may have some way to go; I appreciate the Prime Minister is not yet entirely convinced. What he will know by now is that the way in which the Government have turned EU nationals living here into bargaining chips for the Brexit negotiations, or, as the Secretary of State for International Trade put it,
“one of our main cards”,
is not only deeply unfair to those concerned, but severely undermining our reputation with the very people with whom we want to be entering into negotiations next spring, not to mention the damage it does to our economy. Put simply, it is not in our national interest.
It is absolutely wrong for the Government to suggest that we cannot guarantee the status of EU nationals here—many of whom have been here for decades—without a reciprocal arrangement for UK nationals abroad. The Government are effectively asking people—doctors in our NHS, business owners and entrepreneurs, teachers in our schools—to put their lives on hold and wait until March 2019 to find out what their future holds. But many will want certainty for themselves and their families.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
The following question then arises: if he were in the Government, what guarantees would the hon. Gentleman give to British citizens living in the EU regarding their rights? What possible guarantees or safeguards could he give them?
Paul Blomfield
By giving those guarantees to EU nationals living in this country, we set the marker, and we give the best guarantees to our citizens living in the rest of the EU by making that stand now.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Would it not therefore be better for Ministers to be out there negotiating and getting the reciprocal rights, rather than having to remain at the Dispatch Box for these futile debates that stop them getting on with the job?
Paul Blomfield
I think it would be much better if Ministers did not see EU nationals in this country as bargaining chips, but instead saw them as citizens contributing to our economy and society, as the Foreign Secretary said in the debate in July.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Foreign Secretary and diplomacy, so may I ask a question that might test his? Does he agree with his party leader, and presumably his party’s policy, that Labour wants to continue having free movement even after we have left the EU? That is the position set out by his leader. Can he just confirm to the House, because we want clarity and certainty, if that remains his party’s position?
Paul Blomfield
The shadow Secretary of State made that very clear last week. The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents Labour’s position. I do not know whether he was present for the debate, but he might usefully read Hansard. Opposition Members accept that there will be adjustments to the arrangements and believe in reasonable management of migration.
Keith Vaz
I congratulate my hon. Friend most warmly on his appointment to his new post; I am sure that he will find it very challenging. The Opposition’s position is very clear, and it is the common-sense position, which is a double guarantee: we want to see British citizens keep their rights in the EU, and we want to give EU citizens their rights to stay here. No EU country has said that it wants British citizens to leave the EU. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Paul Blomfield
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is unfortunate that some of the cavalier comments by Ministers have put this issue on the table.
As I was saying, EU nationals want some certainty for themselves and their families, and, if we do not offer it, many of them will only find it by leaving the UK. That is unfair to them, but it is also a loss to our country.
The Opposition do not believe in cutting off our nose to spite our face. We want unilateral and immediate action from the Government to guarantee the status of EU nationals who contribute so much to our society, and we do not believe that that will undermine the Government’s ability to secure the status of UK nationals living in other EU countries, because we believe that they, too, are an asset to the communities in which they have set up home.
If the Government position is not playing too well with our partners abroad, it is not going down well here at home either. Polling for British Future conducted immediately after the referendum shows that an overwhelming majority of both leave and remain voters take the same view: EU nationals should be allowed to remain. Some 84% of people, including 77% of leave voters, want existing EU nationals to stay. A letter to The Sunday Telegraph back in July calling for guaranteed rights for existing EU nationals brought leave and remain supporters, Migration Watch UK and migrants’ rights groups together.
Last week this House made it clear that simply repeating “Brexit means Brexit” will not wash. It will not wash for this House, and it will not wash for people up and down the country. The uncertainty it is creating is having its impact on our economy. So we welcome the Government’s commitment to share their plan for Brexit with Parliament, albeit following pressure from both sides of the House, but there are some issues that cannot wait, and this is one of them.
People who have made their lives here deserve better. Withholding rights from EU nationals here until rights for UK nationals abroad are guaranteed sounds logical enough until we look into what it means in practice. It means that decisions to invest or expand businesses are being scrapped because EU nationals do not want to wait until 2019 to find out if they are welcome and public services are strained further as EU doctors, nurses and teachers uproot and move somewhere they are welcome and can plan for their future. In the meantime the status of UK nationals in other European countries is no more secure since Brexit negotiations are ongoing.
In his statement to the House last week the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that
“five out of six migrants who are here either already have indefinite leave to remain or will have it by the time we depart the Union.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 48.]
Leaving aside the arrogant assumption that EU nationals will just wait around and hope that they will be okay rather than go somewhere they know they will be welcome, what will concern EU citizens who heard that statement is that indefinite leave to remain is not handed out automatically on the basis of length of residency. It has to be applied for, and applying for it is costly and onerous, and there are no guarantees. Perhaps the Minister can today clarify whether that is really what our offer is to those helping run our public services and contributing to our economy—“Stick around for two years and you might be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain.” That is simply not good enough: it is not good enough for them, and it is not good enough for our country.
We are grateful to the SNP for bringing the issue back to the House, and we repeat the call we made in July, which this House endorsed, which is that the Government should provide immediate clarity to EU nationals who are taking decisions about their future now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Time is limited and many Members wish to speak. I will impose an initial time limit of eight minutes, with the proviso that it might well have to be reduced.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I will endeavour to keep my comments pithy—I do not have a lisp. First, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for being so unwilling to take interventions from my hon. Friends during her speech, because so many of the points I had scribbled down for my speech were being brought up by colleagues that otherwise I would have nothing left to say.
I had intended to begin by saying that I assumed that the motion was driven by genuine concern, rather than a desire to play simple party politics. Unfortunately, however, as the hon. and learned Lady’s speech progressed, I found it less easy to maintain that position, because, time and again, I heard examples of this important issue being used as a Trojan horse simply to cast unpalatable accusations at my party. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) says from a sedentary position, “Look in the mirror.” I look in the mirror every morning when I shave, and what I see is a black face looking back at me. When hon. Members start accusing Conservative Members of being xenophobic, I ask that they reflect on those comments before they start accusing—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Comments are to be reflected upon and discussed; they are not be made from a sedentary position. If the hon. Member for Darlington wishes her comments to be noted, she should stand up and make them. If not, she should not make them.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
Time is limited, so I will make some progress. The most important point—this has been brought up numerous times by my hon. Friends, but it has been ignored and left unanswered by the motion’s proposer and those Labour Members who support it—is that British citizens currently living in the EU have had no confirmation about their future status. I remind Members that it is not from the British side of the negotiating relationship that we hear words such as “punishment”. It is from voices at the Commission—EU members—that we hear that Britain needs to be punished. I have spent a lot of time scouring the internet, but I am yet to find an assurance from the EU that British citizens can expect protection as part of the negotiations.
Dr Philippa Whitford
The hon. Gentleman casts an aspersion that members of the Commission are threatening British citizens in Europe. Has he actually seen, read or heard that, because nobody else has? We started it: we voted to leave, so we are the ones who have to start the solution.
James Cleverly
No Government Members or likely members of the negotiation team have been using words such as “punishment”. We should respect the decision of the British people and enter the negotiations—this has been said by Members on both sides of the House, to be fair—with a desire to get the best outcome not only for the British people and our friends and colleagues in the EU, but for British people living in the EU and EU nationals living in Britain. Our collective desired outcome is to come out of the negotiating period with a relationship that works for the EU, us and all people living both in the EU and in the UK.
An estimated 1.2 million British nationals live in the EU, and at the moment their status has a question mark over it. Yet we heard nothing from SNP or Labour Members, despite the numerous opportunities they were given, about whether any effort has been made to secure the status of those British nationals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, was right to say that the British Government’s first responsibility is to the British people. While there is a question mark over the status of British nationals living in the EU, unfortunately it is not legitimate for us to say, unilaterally, that we are going to secure the rights of EU nationals. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Darlington speaks again from a sedentary position, saying, “Humans as bargaining chips.” She accuses the Government of doing that, but fails to use the same phraseology when talking about the people negotiating on behalf of the EU.
We want—this has been said from the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions—to maintain, as closely as possible, our excellent relationship with EU nationals in the UK. We value their commitment.
James Cleverly
I am short of time, so I am afraid that I am going to make progress. As the son of a migrant, I absolutely recognise the incredible value to the UK of immigrants from EU countries and wider afield. This Government have said on many occasions that the value of migrants will be recognised, both now and moving forward.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I am the daughter of an immigrant. Does it not cause the hon. Gentleman great concern that, since the EU referendum, there has been an exponential rise in hate crime in England and Wales? That is not the position in Scotland.
James Cleverly
I do not have access to the detailed figures or the time to answer that question fully, but I would be more than happy to have an extended discussion about the validity of those figures. With the best will in the world, I find it hard to believe that there have been no racially motivated crimes north of the border.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, who moved the motion, kept saying that people were being used as bargaining chips. That fundamentally misses the point that everything we do in politics, including every policy position and every negotiating position we take with the EU, is about people. Politics is about people—always has been, always will be. Every decision that we make through this negotiation will have an impact on people. Yes, our collective attitude towards migration polices has an effect on people, but so do our policies on trade and agricultural subsidies. All those things have a real effect on people. To single out one element of a future negotiation and say that we should unilaterally close it down suggests a naive at best and cynical at worst attitude to our negotiating position. I want the negotiations to be successful for both Great Britain and the EU, but that will not be possible if Great Britain takes unilateral decisions. It has been confirmed from the Dispatch Box that if our EU partners provided a resolution on this issue, it would go away immediately, yet I have heard nothing from them.
Our Government need to have the flexibility to negotiate the best possible deal for the British people. I encourage hon. Members who support the motion to put as much energy and passion into speaking to people on the continent with whom they may have influence about clarifying the position of British nationals in the EU. The whole issue would then be taken off the table and we would end up in the position that I think Members on both sides of the House want—namely, that of having a positive attitude towards the negotiations, with the ultimate goal of giving as much clarity and reassurance as possible both to EU nationals living here and to British nationals living in the EU. I call on Members to reject the motion.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The simple reason we should make the move is that it is the UK that has voted to leave. It is we who have caused the insecurity, whether for our citizens in Europe or for EU nationals here, so it is incumbent on us to make the move to try to deal with that. As for the idea that people are not having problems, I have constituents struggling to get loans or mortgages for businesses and for houses. It is ridiculous to say that they are not concerned; they absolutely are. The idea that they should spend two years in limbo is frankly appalling.
Obviously, with my health background, I can say that we know that our health and social care system completely depends on EU nationals. We have more than 50,000 such doctors and nurses. The Minister was berating Shona Robison about trying to collect the data in Scotland, but we do not have data for Scotland. The 130,000 is for England, because we never considered it at all relevant where someone who was settled in Scotland came from and therefore never asked. Now, we need to know how many people might have an issue, whether it is that they will get thrown out or that they will get fed up with the insecurity and leave.
The other question is how we think we will attract more. One in 10 medical jobs in England is empty; we have massive rota gaps. How easy do we think it will be to attract EU doctors to come and fill those posts in the coming years when the message they get is that they are not terribly welcome and that, if they come, they might be asked to go home because they came after—
Dr Whitford
The hon. Gentleman was not keen on taking interventions, so I shall crack on.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
My hon. Friend talks about how EU nationals might feel about coming here in future. Does she share my concern and that of my constituents that this goes right back to the debates in this House on the European Union Referendum Bill, in which we even froze them out of having a vote on the issue? The message is not good, and they might decide to turn their backs on this new Brexit Britain.
Dr Whitford
Absolutely. So much of this is about not technicalities but the message we give outside this place. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said in winding up her speech, it is also about Britain’s reputation. Britain previously had a reputation for fairness. Look at the second or third generation of immigrants, who have made their home for generations in this country. Now we say, “You might not be able to stay,” or, “You might not be able to come.” The best way to secure the place of British nationals in Europe is for us to be gracious.
The hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) asked what we have done to try to make the position secure. I am on the all-party parliamentary group on Germany; we raised this issue both when we met the ambassador here and when we visited Berlin, and they were incredulous that we would even think that they would ask British nationals to go away. They said, “Should we make a move?” It is our move to make because the UK has created this situation.
We cannot survive without these people in the NHS and, in particular, the 80,000 who work in social care. If they apply because they are anxious for British citizenship, it will cost them almost £1,500 per head, per member of their family, to do so. That is quite a lot when someone might not even be earning the minimum wage. If the final position is that they are eventually treated the same as non-EEA citizens, it will cost £4,000 per head, including the NHS surcharge, which, despite working in it, they might actually have to pay to access it. To say that these things are trivial and that these people should be reassured is, I think, naive.
There is already an impact on medical research and academia. When I was at the graduation of my local university just a week after Brexit, had lost a senior researcher from mainland Europe who was almost at the point of stepping on the boat. He said, “Why would I move my children to an English-speaking school? Why would I disrupt and move my family when I might get sent home in two years?” The idea that this is having no effect and that people should just cling on to soft reassurance is childish. We are the ones who need to make the first move and we should make that move. Future agreements can be negotiated, but everyone settled here on 23 June or earlier should have that right to remain and we are the ones who should make that move.
The APPG visited Berlin and it was very interesting. I picked up a couple of points. Peter Altmaier, second-in-command to Angela Merkel, was quite shocked that we use the term EU migrant. He said that they would never use that term; to them, migrant means someone from outside Europe. It would be like our being described as Scottish migrants, or Irish migrants, within the British Isles. It seems abhorrent.
Kwasi Kwarteng
This is the nub of the issue with the Brexit vote. The Germans are quite happy to describe people from outside the EU as migrants, but not people from within the EU. It was that exclusive club that I think led many ethnic communities in Britain to the out vote.
Dr Whitford
Frankly, this is an immigration arrangement from Europe. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that having stirred up the anti-immigrant view that led to leave we are going to say that we will not take EU nationals but that we will take many more people from all over the world, he is deluding himself.
Another point came up when members of our group said that Europe had to change free movement, so that we could stay in the single market. Where were we sitting at that moment? We were sitting in what had previously been East Berlin. We need to understand that for all Germans and east Europeans free movement of people comes from the heart; it is not a technical problem. They do not realise that we do not understand that. Twenty-seven years ago, there was a wall through Berlin. The last person trying to get over it was shot just a few months before it came down. Angela Merkel could not travel west until she was 36 years old.
Dr Whitford
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
In our debate in July, I mentioned that my husband Hans is a GP who has worked in our NHS for 30 years. At first, he did not really think that this concerned him, because he thought that it would all disappear, but four months on it has not. The problem is that these people are finding it terrible. The Minister said in that debate that anyone who had been here about five years could apply for right to remain, and when I mentioned my husband he said, “Oh, he can definitely stay.” My husband has printed out Hansard and is keeping it in his passport to prove absolutely that he has his personal reassurance. The Minister also said in that debate that we would have to consider what rights and benefits they have and which of our public services they can access. My husband, nearing retirement after 30-odd years in the NHS, is really concerned that he might get to stay but might suddenly have to pay for the healthcare he has been delivering for 30 years. And we are told that we are the scaremongers.
The story of my husband’s family is this. His father was German; his mother was Polish. They met during the war and were not allowed to marry. They had a child who was taken away from them. They were lifted and interrogated by the Gestapo. His father was imprisoned and his mother was turned into a forced labourer. Long before this debate arose, my husband used to say, “I can’t believe that in one generation I have been allowed to marry who I like, settle where I like and carry out the profession I chose.” I cannot believe that in one more generation we could lose those rights and take them away from our young people.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
It is with some sadness that I rise to contribute to the debate, because where I can I, as a fellow Celt and a Welsh MP, look to support much of what my friends the Members from Scotland do. I was a happy remainer until the referendum and my constituency, Cardiff, voted by 60% to remain, but now I am working with my constituents to remain with the best bits of the European Union. Most of them, and especially me, are convinced that we are leaving and that is that. We get on with it.
I represent the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. Much has been said about how much the medical profession relies on people coming from all over the world, not just the European Union. I wonder whether Scottish National party Members have thought about the impression that their language and rhetoric in today’s debate are creating. I have just heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) use the term “thrown out”. That kind of language is not coming from those on my Benches. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made the point that we are agreed on much of this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that people who lived here before 23 June should have the right to stay, but that is not what the motion states. It talks about people who have “made the UK their home”. That is open to interpretation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, a learned Member with much experience as an Immigration Minister, explained why the motion was so clumsily worded.
I am rising not to support the motion but to say that I am working to ensure that the EU nationals in my constituency, in Wales and in the United Kingdom know that they are welcome. They make a terrific contribution to our economy, our communities and our society, and we want to keep them there, but we are also rightly trying to protect the interests of British people in the EU as well. As a Welsh MP, I am protecting Welsh people across the European Union. They have settled all over the place. I hope that hon. Members from Scotland will support me in that, but I have been saddened to hear their rhetoric in this debate.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the language being used in this debate. I should like to ask him whether he was at the Tory party conference. My wife is an EU national, and she already feels as though she is a second-class citizen because she does not get a vote from the UK Government. After she had listened to the speeches at the Tory party conference, she said to me, “I am no longer welcome in the UK under this Government.” How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?
Craig Williams
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was tuning into the Conservative party conference. I was indeed at the conference, with many EU nationals from my constituency and from my team in this Parliament. I have EU nationals working for and with me. This is absolute nonsense. It is scaremongering and it is terrible. The scaremongering is coming from those on the Opposition Benches and it is deplorable—
Craig Williams
Is this about bargaining chips? No it is not.
I fear that SNP Members are trying to rerun the arguments of the referendum. I was with them on many of those arguments during the referendum, but I am afraid that we lost. I know that it is the ambition of SNP Members to ignore referendum results until they get them right, but speaking as a Welsh Member, I do not take that view. We must now respect the will of the British people.
Joanna Cherry
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the independence referendum in Scotland, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, told the voters of Scotland that the only way they could guarantee their continued EU membership was to vote to remain part of the UK? Does he agree that that is now a broken promise?
Craig Williams
Absolutely not. Ruth Davidson is a politician without parallel in Scotland and I am incredibly proud that she leads our party up there. I was up there during the independence referendum, campaigning alongside her. I could happily chuck in many quotes from the Spanish Government echoing my point about Scottish membership of the European Union, but that would do nothing for my constituents. Much of this debate will do nothing for the EU nationals in my constituency who are seeking leadership and certainty from this place. We are hearing that from the Government, but not from Members across the House who want to use this issue as a political football. That is deplorable.
I want to quote some Government Ministers at this point. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has said:
“We always welcome those with skills, the drive and the expertise to make our nation better still. If we are to win in the global marketplace, we must win the global battle for talent”.
How much more welcoming could anyone be towards EU nationals, or indeed towards the world, than that? The Home Secretary has said:
“I believe immigration has brought many benefits to the nation. It has enhanced our economy, our society and our culture. That is why I want to reduce net migration while continuing to ensure we attract the brightest and the best”.
This is what my constituents put me here to do. This is the Government I am supporting and I am delighted to do so. The Prime Minister has said:
“Let me be absolutely clear: existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law—and they will be guaranteed as long as I am Prime Minister”.
I can assure the House that she will be Prime Minister of this great country for many years to come and that those workers’ rights will be guaranteed. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury made a speech to representatives of the UK financial services industry recently, in which he said of the negotiations that, as long as we get a comparable relationship with other EU nations, there will be no question but that EU nationals who are already working here will be able to stay. The nub of the question is that we must achieve a reciprocal arrangement with our EU neighbours.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my Welsh colleague for giving way. He has quoted various Ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister, on the subject of people working in this country. What does he have to say to the EU nationals living in my constituency who are pensioners? They have had no such reassurances from Ministers or from the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the workers and the brightest and the best, and I am sure that everyone welcomes the fact that such people are working in this country, but I am not scaremongering when I say that my constituents who have retired and who are living here have had no assurances from those on the Government Front Bench that they have the right to remain here.
Craig Williams
I personally want them to remain here happily spending their money in our economy, but what about the British pensioners in Spain who are spending their money in the Spanish economy? This is the point: there must be a reciprocal arrangement. If British pensioners in EU states can be protected, we will protect the EU pensioners in this state. That is the nub of the issue.
This has been a sad debate for me, as a remainer and now a committed leaver. I want to work constructively across the House to protect the best bits of the European Union while getting the best possible agreement for British citizens who currently reside in the EU, be they pensioners, workers, students or those doing research. However, it is clear that this whole issue is being hijacked by Opposition Members to provoke needless outrage, and that does not help anybody. I hope that the speakers who follow me will try to change the tone of the debate and help my constituents in Cardiff.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to support such a consistent politician as the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams)—a remainer one day and a leaver the next! However, he made a strong case for a guarantee for EU citizens to remain in this country. The difficulty is that all those amazing quotes he has gathered—which the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), with all his internet shopping, was unable to give us—are actually worth nothing unless they are spoken from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Cardiff North is right to say that Ministers and others have talked about the contribution made by EU nationals, but at the end of the day it is for the Government to make those statements here in this House or in written statements.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on her powerful, eloquent and clear speech. In fact, all that she has sought is clarity, and all that we have heard from Ministers so far—the Minister for Immigration has left the Chamber, leaving it to the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, whom I congratulate on his appointment, to answer for the Government—is that it is all going to be all right on the night, but they just cannot say that in the House of Commons. All Members of the House have made the point that clarity is extremely important. If we have that clarity, it will be clear where we stand and there will be no need for the Opposition to keep bringing this debate back to the House every two weeks or so.
As a former Minister for Europe, I know that nothing at summit meetings is kept private. There is no question that any EU Head of Government has said to our Prime Minister either publicly or privately—if it was private, it would be public by now—that they want to remove British citizens from the EU. We heard today about the double guarantee. There is no question but that the SNP and the official Opposition would guarantee British citizens the right to remain in the EU if we had the power. All that we seek is the guarantee that EU residents in this country will be allowed to stay here.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are the White Queen in these negotiations and that we have to make the first move? If that move is gracious, it will invite a gracious response.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Lady, who made a powerful speech, is right. It is possible for us to take that position, and the position of the other EU countries is also clear because nobody has said that they want to do any damage to British citizens abroad, so we can show leadership by saying what the deal is. That would clear the matter up immediately.
The problem with putting the matter into the negotiations is the disparity of numbers. There are 1.2 million British citizens in the EU and 3 million EU citizens here. We do not want people to say as part of the negotiations that we will have absolute parity of numbers. That is what worries me.
The Minister nods. He will have the chance when he winds up the debate to state that there will be no question of our saying to the other EU countries that we will allow only 1.2 million people to stay. That is why it is far better to be clear about the rights of EU citizens now than to wait until the end of the negotiations.
There are three possible cut-off dates: 23 June, the date of the referendum; 31 March 2017; and 31 March 2019. I favour the date of the referendum, because it is absolutely clear. Others may favour the date that we actually leave the EU, but the point is that we are making a mess of our immigration policy if we keep negotiating in this way. We need absolute clarity, particularly on immigration. The Government are worried that if they wait until 31 March 2019, there will be a spike in EU citizens coming to this country before we exit in order to secure the right to stay here. When the Minister comes to wind up, I hope that he will give us the figures for how many EU nationals have actually come to Britain. In fact, many are so worried that they are considering leaving our country because they simply do not know where they stand.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) asked the SNP whether it was necessary to keep bringing this debate to the House when the matter is actually all settled. I am sure that it is settled in his mind and my mind, but it is not settled in Government policy. However, we can have a settled Government policy. We just heard an excellent statement from the Immigration Minister that EU citizens who are studying in our country will be allowed to remain and get the support that they have had in the past. If a Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and make a clear statement of that kind to reassure EU nationals who are studying here, it is simple for the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to get up and make exactly the same statement about EU nationals who are resident here. The fact that the SNP included the word “should” in its motion should not stop the Government supporting it. They had the opportunity to enter into negotiations with the SNP, as we saw last week when they avoided another vote, which everyone thought was going to happen but which did not happen, thanks to the position taken by the Government. If we are trying to ensure that the fears of EU nationals are put to one side and that EU nationals are reassured, we can easily make such a statement today.
My next point relates to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), a former Immigration Minister, who said in his intervention on the current Immigration Minister that we would also consider the matter of EU nationals in our prisons as part of the negotiations. That is news to me. I did not realise that that was going to be part of the negotiations. Over the past 10 years, successive Governments have been trying to send EU citizens back. They constitute 10% of the entire prison population and we have not been able to move them out. Are we suggesting that we will put the question of EU citizens in our prisons into the negotiating pot as part of the deal for allowing EU citizens to remain here?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
We have an EU agreement whereby all EU Governments agree that they will exchange prisoners, so the current legal position allows that to happen. The problems that have stopped that happening are largely logistical and rather wrapped up in the bureaucracy of the Interior Ministries of different countries. At the moment we have reciprocal agreements, and EU countries have agreed to accept their own nationals to complete their sentence in their own country if they are returned as prisoners from other countries.
Keith Vaz
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. He probably negotiated that agreement when he was either Home Secretary or Lord Chancellor. There is therefore no need to put that into the negotiations because it is already there, although Poland has a derogation and the Polish situation will become live again only at the end of this year.
The Minister is in his first, well-deserved job in government and can make a hero of himself to the Government Whips, because they will not need to keep bringing back debates on the European Union and the rights of nationals, to Worcester and to the EU. Rather like the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams), he was a remainer but is now a committed exiter as a result of the decision on 23 June. All we seek is clarity, so let us be clear. Nothing is put at risk by accepting what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West has said. Let us put the matter to bed. Otherwise, the Minister can be sure that the issue will return again and again.
Finally, the EU summit is tomorrow and the Prime Minister will presumably, since we are still members of the EU, be there. Some Members have suggested that Members of this House should begin the negotiations, which is well above our pay grade, but the Prime Minister is going to that EU summit tomorrow. The will of the House can be expressed today and the Prime Minister can begin the discussions on this particular issue tomorrow. I am sure that she will get a positive reply from the other EU leaders.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I echo the comments about how disappointing it is that the SNP chose to play a game of political football rather than to discuss the issues seriously. There is little in the motion that I would disagree with except for the word “should”, to which I will return in a moment. The motion asks us to recognise the huge contribution that people from other EU countries have made to this country. Of course we all recognise their contribution. That point has been made over and over again on these Government Benches, and inside and outside the House by people in both the remain and leave camps. Let me say it again: people from other European Union nations have made an enormous contribution to this country. They are very welcome in this country. They were welcome before the referendum took place, they are welcome now and they will be welcome after we exit the EU.
David T. C. Davies
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to mention that. I declare an interest in that my wife is Hungarian. My children are completely bilingual and have dual nationality. It is a cliché, but when I say that some of my closest friends are from eastern Europe, I mean that I go on holiday and share houses with them, which makes us pretty close friends. It is ludicrous even to suggest that people who are involved in the leave campaign—dare I say that I was the leader of the campaign in Wales?—have some kind of xenophobic or anti-EU agenda.
At the same time, we should also be making it clear that we welcome the contribution of professionals from countries outside the EU. I have dealt with many EU nationals who work in the NHS and the public sector in Wales, but I have also dealt with doctors from Egypt, businessmen from India and nurses from the Philippines, and they are also making a huge contribution to our economy. These people from outside the EU nations are also very welcome and will continue to be so. It is ridiculous to suggest that people from EU states should somehow be scared or worried about what is going to happen when we leave the EU, given that we already welcome and appreciate the contribution of so many people from outside it.
This Government have put compassion at the heart of their policy. We are spending more money on foreign aid than any other Government in this country has ever done and more than any other country in Europe is doing; we have ring-fenced NHS spending in England—Labour certainly has not done that in Wales; and we are dedicated to ironing out the inequality within the education sector. It is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that anyone on any part of the Government Benches would ever want to round up people from other EU nations and throw them out—that is a fantasy and it will never, ever happen. Nobody wants it to happen and nobody has ever called for it to happen. I am just grateful for the opportunity to say that clearly once again.
Apparently, there have been issues with hate crime. May I say once again, as someone who was heavily involved in the leave campaign, that I, along with everyone I campaigned with, unreservedly condemn any form of hate crime towards anyone, be they from EU nations or outside, and whether it is because of their sexual orientation, the colour of their skin, their religion or their nationality? I, along with every person I have ever worked with on the leave campaign and with every person I have been involved with in politics, totally condemn that sort of behaviour. We should not run away with the idea that people from eastern Europe or from other European nations are constantly being hassled as they walk around; in my experience, which is considerable, that is simply not happening. I have been married for 13 years to somebody who moved here from eastern Europe and who has never been a victim of that sort of behaviour. I am not suggesting it does not happen, but I sometimes think there is a tendency to over-exaggerate.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the statistics produced by the Home Office showing that hate crime has increased by 41% in England and Wales since the EU referendum? Does he accept those stats produced by his Government’s Home Office?
David T. C. Davies
Of course, but the statistics have increased because the Government have rightly said that they are determined to stamp out hate crime and are looking to police forces—
Several hon. Members rose—
David T. C. Davies
Let me answer the question and then perhaps I will give way again. The Home Office has rightly said that it is determined to stamp out hate crime and it is expecting police forces to produce figures and to seek out examples. Of course we also face the additional problem that social media sites such as Twitter make it easier for keyboard warriors to commit hate crimes—one has only to look at my feed today to see that that is the case.
Joanna Cherry
I am very interested by what the hon. Gentleman has just said, as I think he is suggesting that the Home Office has changed the basis on which it calculates hate crime in the UK since the EU referendum. Would he like to tell us his source for that? Or perhaps the Minister will be able to help us with that later.
David T. C. Davies
I have not suggested that; I have said that the Home Office is rightly determined to stamp out hate crime and it has asked police forces to be much more rigorous in getting the figures. The Home Office will be looking to use those figures to investigate this, and quite right too; there is nothing wrong with that. But what I find concerning is that the hon. and learned Lady and others seem to have tried to make a correlation between hate crime and Brexit, and the clear and worrying implication of what they are doing is to suggest that the 17.2 million people who legitimately voted for Brexit are in some way responsible for hate crimes. That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion and I hope that—
David T. C. Davies
I hope that if I give way to her for the third time, the hon. and learned Lady will take this opportunity to make it very clear that those people who voted to leave the EU were exercising their democratic right to do so and do not, in any way, support hate crimes.
Joanna Cherry
I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman this: how does he explain the 40% increase in hate crime in England and Wales since the referendum if it is not down to the vote? To what does he attribute this? How does he explain why there has been no such increase in Scotland? We would love to hear his wisdom on that.
David T. C. Davies
I am not an expert on Scotland, but I can tell the hon. and learned Lady that the Government are absolutely determined to stamp out hate crime and are rightly demanding that police forces come forward with those figures, and I am very glad that they have done so. The problem she has is the same as a conundrum I faced about 17 or 18 years ago when I was on the losing side of the referendum on whether or not we should have a Welsh Assembly. That all went through on a very small vote and issues were raised about how the press had handled it. Those in the anti-Assembly campaign all sat down afterwards and thought, “What are we going to do? We should challenge this and get the Lords to chuck it out. It is outrageous. How dare they do this on the basis of a vote of about one in four of the population?” At that time, I was probably a little less older and wiser than I am now, and I was probably all for fighting the campaign and re-running the whole referendum. I am glad that wiser heads within the Conservative party prevailed and those in the anti-Assembly campaign said, “Hang on a minute, people have voted for this. It may only be one in four of the population in Wales and we lost out by only a few thousand votes, but the reality is that people have voted for it and we now need to let them get on with it.” What we did was to appoint to the National Assembly advisory group somebody who is now a Conservative Minister, Nick Bourne, who became a very good friend. He decided that he was going to get the Conservative party involved in this, to iron out the details of what was actually going on.
The motion’s use of the word “should” is what would lead me to vote against it; the rest of the motion is absolutely fine. We do recognise the contribution that is being made by EU migrants within the UK, and the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that their rights are respected post-Brexit. The whole point of what the Government are doing at the moment is to say to other EU nations and to the EU itself, “Look, we’ve got 3 million people here. We want to protect their rights. We want to ensure that their freedom to move around continues in every single way, but you are going to need to reciprocate in some way.” As someone who is married to an EU immigrant, may I say that I utterly support what the Government are doing and trust them to do exactly the right thing?
Dr Philippa Whitford
I gently point out that this is a debate on the EU and not on Wales. It is absolutely the case that people who voted leave are not racist or xenophobic, but unfortunately what that vote has done is give authorisation to people who feel emboldened, now they are in the majority, and we have seen these incidents across the country.
David T. C. Davies
Everyone absolutely condemns any form of hate crime. The hon. Lady made a point earlier about Berlin and the Berlin wall, so let me say how strongly I feel about that. I have visited Sopron, where the Berlin wall really fell; the videos of people cutting through the barbed wire can be seen on YouTube. These were people from Berlin who had gone on holiday in that summer of 1989 to Sopron in Hungary. They snipped through the wire and walked into Austria because they had been told that they were not going to get shot at for doing so. It was there that the Berlin wall really began to fall and the socialist Government in East Germany finally realised that their blinkered view of how people should live their lives was not going to prevail because people do demand freedom.
We are not in the business of erecting a wall as a result of Brexit; we are in the business of taking down a wall—a much less violent wall but one that exists around the European Union—going out into the world and giving people the freedom to trade and to do business all over the world. That is what this is all about.
Let me finish by saying how delighted I am that the hon. Lady recognises the important significance of the Berlin wall coming down and the defeat for socialism, for that is what it was. I hope that she will join me in paying tribute to Lech Walesa, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul and Mrs Thatcher, who did so much to bring about the end of socialism in eastern Europe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. This has been such a lively and excellent debate, with so many interventions that speeches have gone way over eight minutes. I am afraid that I therefore now have to reduce the official time limit to six minutes, but I am sure there will still be lively interventions.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I commend the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) when setting out the case as to why it is important that we give reassurance to European citizens across the UK. That case is even more focused in Scotland and, in particular, in the highlands, given the history there of struggling over many centuries to retain our population. Our issue is one of emigration and being able to retain young people and young families—being able to make the highlands a place where people will stay. We have done great work over the past decade or so to turn around the situation where people are leaving. I wish to read out two quotes from a report by Highland Council, the first of which is:
“An area at risk of depopulation needs to welcome those who want to make it their home.”
As a former leader of Highland Council, I am particularly proud that it also put forward this statement in the report.
“Highlanders have always warmly welcomed people from other countries who choose to live and work in our area and it will be important at this time to provide reassurance to EU nationals that this welcome continues and that we value their contribution to Highland life.”
Highland Council drew up this report and put out its statement on a cross-party basis—all parties and none. There was no scaremongering. The council just saw a need to reassure people, and I wholeheartedly agree with it on that.
I wish to talk about language. When we talk about the welcome that people have in Scotland and in the highlands, let me be absolutely clear that welcome means welcome. A French national came to my surgery recently. He had been living in our area for 30 years and spoke with a Scots-French accent. He was concerned that he might have to make changes. In our economy, we depend on EU nationals for our agriculture and fisheries, food industry, hospitality industry, the care industry and the NHS, and the tourism industry. One local hotel owner told me that, during the busy part of the year, 40% of his employees are EU nationals. We require these people. The new University of the Highlands and Islands depends on European involvement as well as the young people.
This issue does not just affect the highlands and Scotland. Antony Walker, chief executive officer of TechUK, said:
“The UK is one of the leading digital economies in the world. Part of the reason is because the UK is able to attract the world’s most talented individuals to fill jobs where the UK simply does not have the domestic skills base. Making it harder for tech companies to bring in the best and brightest is not the solution and will be a lose-lose situation for everyone—growth will slow as companies find it harder to recruit, meaning lower revenue for the Treasury.”
Clearly, there is a warning there.
I held a meeting in my constituency for concerned EU nationals. This was not about scaremongering, but about reassuring people. That meeting was completely sold out. It was packed to the rafters with people who were looking for some reassurance that they would be able to stay.
I wish to use my remaining time by quoting from a local woman of Polish extraction. Paulina Duncan is a UK citizen and a Pole. She said:
“Maybe I can summarise some of the comments I got from people when I initiated the discussion on the Poles in Inverness Facebook group over the weekend. I did it to find out what people think. I also went to the Polish delicatessen to chat to people there. Without any doubt, the common theme appearing in people’s comments was uncertainty and confusion about their future. There was also a lack of trust in the assurances from the Westminster Government. Generally, people would like something more than just words, being aware that words have no value and that they might be used as pawns during the negotiations.”
Those are the words of an EU citizen, not of Members in this debate. Paulina went on to say:
“Sadness and disappointment and maybe also disbelief is another common sentiment. One of my French friends, who came to Scotland as a student 15 years ago and has stayed here ever since, commented on how sad it was to see how inward looking Britain has become when other countries have so much healthier communities when they are more open.Some people consider returning to their countries, which is maybe what Theresa May has in mind. However, some have nowhere to return to as they have bought their houses here, their children were born in this country and never went to Polish school.”
This is about reassuring the people who live here—our friends, our neighbours and the people in our community. They are vital to our community and to our future. I urge the Minister to make a statement—an easy-to-make statement—to reassure EU nationals that they will be given the right to remain here, live here, work here and be valued as part of our society.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in this debate; my constituency has seen, proportionally, more EU migration than any other in the country. Drawn by the UK’s relatively high minimum wages, literally tens of thousands of people have come from Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and elsewhere to Boston and to Lincolnshire more generally in search of better lives, more money and greater prospects. They were drawn here by the rights mentioned in this debate. They may not be able to vote for us in this House, but, as I have said here before, we should all be keenly aware that those people are our constituents wherever they were born and whatever passport they hold.
Those new communities are in many cases home to model citizens; head pupils in schools in Boston are now from a diverse range of communities in a way that they were not in previous years. In schools, children show that children treat children equally, whatever their nationality. Done wrong, immigration, wherever it is from, leads to talk of “them” and “us”; done properly, “them” becomes “us”.
Boston’s agricultural economy relies on migrant labour from eastern Europe just as in previous centuries it relied on labour from the midlands, Ireland or Portugal. We have a lower rate of empty shops than the comparable national average because new communities come not just to work in our fields, but to set up their own firms, and to improve their lot. They come to do all that, and they are able to do all that, because of the rights that we are talking about in this debate. Done right, the town benefits from all of this.
When it comes to today’s motion, I hope that Europe will see the benefits that British people bring to the continent and grant them the right to stay after the UK leaves the EU, and then the UK can do likewise. In many ways, Boston and Skegness’s continued economic growth depends on that reciprocity. That basic equality seems to be uncontroversial; it should be straightforward.
I wish to talk a little bit about why there are parts of this country, my own included, where we have got migration badly wrong, making debates such as this too shrill, too partisan and frankly sometimes too difficult to attract genuine contributions. With hindsight, the expansion of Europe to far poorer economies than our own was inevitably going to draw large numbers of people to areas where labour was abundant and very often casual. The Government of the day bungled the figures; we did not see changes coming and we failed to invest in local public services to keep pace with demands for schools, hospitals, GPs, and even housing and roads.
Today, while Boston still needs the bypass that has been on the drawing board for 100 years, schools have caught up but the NHS has not, and that raises tensions and causes debates such as this. No longer required to have a job before travelling to the UK, many people were tempted by inaccurate representations of life in the UK, and found themselves doing desperately hard work in freezing fields before returning home to a rented room unfit for human habitation in which they were allowed to occupy the bed only when it was their turn. Boston’s work in tackling rogue landlords has been rightly lauded in this House, but migration has worsened a problem that the Government should have foreseen. The consequences of those poor housing conditions has led to tensions, such as street drinking, antisocial behaviour and violent crime. Some Bostonians ask what those add to an historic town that was once a port second only to London.
Fast forward to 2016 and Boston is called—wrongly in my view—the least integrated town in the country by Policy Exchange. That report is wrong because it does not measure recent work done on street drinking, rogue landlords, and community integration, but it is talking about a real problem. Some constituents have asked me why everyone should be allowed to stay.
The solution to these issues is not to blindly pretend that every aspect of Boston or Britain is either better or worse for migration. There are a host of opportunities that we must seize and a host of nettles that we must grasp if we are ever to make these debates more sensible. We should depoliticise debates such as this and treat people like people.
I want to close by reading a few comments that were posted on my own Facebook wall. I went to see a superb new agricultural development that will create around 100 new jobs. Underneath the photographs some of my constituents wrote: “We all know who will be filling the labour requirements here”; “We shall see how many locals get a job”; “They don’t employ English. I got told that when I went for a job, so I didn’t even get an application form so it won’t be local people.”
When we get immigration wrong, we divide our country, we divide our towns and we foster radical parties that bring out the worst in good people. We end up having debates such as this. There is no easy way to encourage integration, especially when predominantly young men work in my constituency’s fields, largely in groups from their own countries, and go out in their precious leisure time with little motivation to integrate. But if we are to sensibly conclude debates such as this, we should have a care to those concerns just as much as we do to the rights of migrant workers, whether we are speaking of a Briton in Spain or a Lithuanian in Boston.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It has been 118 days since the EU referendum—118 days of blunders, slap-downs, in-fighting and conflicting statements from this UK Government. It is a case of life imitating art, as this shambolic response from the UK Government is more akin to a plot line from “The Thick of It” than a co-ordinated response to a deeply challenging and serious situation. It would be laughable if the consequences of Tory Brexit were not quite so serious.
It might be 118 days of in-fighting and a failure to govern, but it has also been 118 days when 3 million of our citizens do not know what the future holds for them or their families. Since 23 June, 3 million EU citizens, who pay an estimated £14.7 billion in income tax and national insurance contributions, have been referred to as “bargaining chips” in a Tory game that no one ever wanted to play in the first place.
But this is not a game and our EU-born nationals are not “bargaining chips”, “pawns” or “playing cards”. They are our wives, our husbands, our neighbours, co-workers, doctors, nurses, teachers and our friends. Instead of throwing fuel on the fire and making a very worrying situation for them even worse, this Government should be doing all they can to provide the assurance to the 3 million EU citizens in the UK that their future is secure here.
This debate says a lot about what kind of country we are. It might be an inconvenience for a few in the Brexiteer camp to think of the UK as a diverse country, but that is exactly what we are. We are better as a country because of the 57,000 NHS staff who were born elsewhere in the EU. Many sectors of our economy are world-leading not in spite of EU workers, but because of their expertise and skills. Times Higher Education highlighted how UK universities are world-leading, and this is in no small part because of the excellent level of teaching and research that EU nationals provide.
The Prime Minister’s short-sighted refusal to provide our EU nationals with the assurance that they are entitled to represents a slap in the face despite their hard work and the contribution they have made to our society.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gavin Newlands
Not right now.
The UK Government may want to pretend that nothing will change, but the fact is that everything has changed for our EU nationals following the Brexit vote. Many are starting to think again about the country in which they have invested so much time and effort. Agnieska from the Renfrewshire Polish Association, whom I met a few weeks ago, shared her concerns and those of many members of her group not only about the result of the referendum, but about some of the divisive rhetoric since. However, she felt somewhat sheltered from this by living in Scotland, with the different approach taken by the Scottish Government.
It is not only the failure to give assurances that is problematic. The statements and speeches at the Conservative party conference caused many EU nationals to consider their future. The new Home Secretary seems to share her predecessor’s bleak vision of reducing migration to tens of thousands and sees Brexit as one means of achieving this, refusing to recognise that 78% of working-age EU citizens in the UK are in work, compared with around 74% of UK nationals. It is economic vandalism of the highest order for the Home Secretary not to give these hard-working individuals the right to live and work in the UK, all with the aim of achieving the right-wing holy grail of reducing immigration.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Home Secretary expressed her desire to implement a system which requires companies to compile lists of foreign workers which would be used to “ name and shame” those who employ large numbers of foreign workers. It is not the companies that should be placed in any wall of shame. The only person who should be ashamed is the Home Secretary for managing to propose a policy which even UKIP says goes too far.
Following a poisonous Brexit campaign, which has helped to create the environment in England and Wales for an increase in racially or religiously aggravated offences, a responsible Government would be praising and thanking EU nationals for the contribution that they make to our communities and assuring them of their right to stay. This UK Government have singularly failed to do so. The contrast could not be any sharper north of the border. Whereas the Prime Minister has remained silent and allowed her “hard Brexit” colleagues to describe EU nationals as “bargaining chips”, Nicola Sturgeon has shown compassionate leadership and adopted a positive and inclusive approach, and has repeatedly reassured those EU nationals who have made Scotland their home that Scotland is and will continue to be their home.
Economically, socially, culturally and morally the UK Government should do the correct thing today and offer a cast-iron guarantee to all those who have made the UK their home. That is a call that the Scottish Parliament, wider civil society, the business sector and EU nationals have all made to the Prime Minister.
Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and to reject the narrow-minded politics of the UKIP-Tory right-wing alliance. Those votes and those voters need to be respected, so the Government should stop playing games, end the xenophobia, lead for all our citizens, back this motion and categorically state to EU nationals that their future lies here and their residency status will be protected.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. I have found it particularly interesting—and slightly nauseating actually —to hear from Members of the Scottish National party, who drape themselves in a cloak of moral certainty, as if to cast aspersions on Conservative Members’ motivations and desire to foster good community relations. The Conservative Government and my constituents, who voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union, are not racists. May I repeat that for the benefit of SNP Members? It is not a racist campaign. This notion that, somehow, the Brexit vote was fuelled by xenophobia, that the people in the SNP are on the side of the angels, and that everyone who opposes them—everyone who has ever argued against them—is in a benighted cave of their own is completely ridiculous. Frankly, it is embarrassing; it insults the intelligence of people in this House for SNP Members to suggest that everyone else is xenophobic and that they alone are the guardians of moral virtue. [Interruption.] They may not have said it, but everything they have ever said on this issue implies exactly that: they seize the moral high ground and they proceed to lecture us, and those of us on the Government Benches have had enough of it.
Now, let me address the issue at hand. Nobody has suggested in the debate that migration is a bad thing in Britain. Many of the people who have spoken—myself included—are themselves the children or grandchildren of immigrants; they fully understand, and are fully conscious of, the benefits of migration to this country. The issue is simply a narrow one about the negotiation and the nature of the deal with the EU going forward. It is entirely legitimate for a Government, ahead of negotiations, to say, as the Government have done, that our aim is to guarantee and secure the rights of EU nationals in this country. That is what the Government have done, and it is entirely reasonable for them to have done that; in fact, nobody in the House, I think, would suggest that that was a bad thing.
The Government have said that that is the aim. Now, if it were to happen, for whatever reason—I am not prejudging this in any way—that an EU Government questioned the rights of British citizens working in their country, circumstances would of course have changed, and we could well be in a different situation.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, if there were difficulties with a country, he is suggesting that the Government would take reprisals?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not suggesting anything of the kind. What I am saying is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) suggested, it is naive simply to give cast-iron guarantees at this point. I suspect that these guarantees will be given further along the line and that it is very likely we will reach a situation where everyone is happy and everyone can stay. However, at this moment—in October 2016—it would be a little premature, perhaps, to give those undertakings.
James Berry
In Kingston, as in Spelthorne, foreign-born people are welcome. We very much value their contribution; we want them to stay. However, is my hon. Friend aware that not one EU Head of State has given the unilateral and unequivocal guarantee that SNP Members are asking for in the debate?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is exactly right. I regret to say this, but if one has been following the foreign news reports of the statements made by Jean-Claude Juncker and other people, it is clear that there is an air of menace around. I am not saying that it is universally expressed, but there is a view that somehow the British people acted defiantly or insolently towards the EU and that we should be punished as a consequence of the vote on 23 June. I regret having to say this, but it is a fact that people on the continent in high positions in the EU have made such statements.
Mr Baron
Many of us, leavers and remainers, have great sympathy with the position expressed in the motion, but where we part company is with the final six words
“should the UK exit the EU.”
Brexit means Brexit, and that is pure mischief-making by the SNP. That is why a lot of us will not be supporting the motion.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have given way enough, and I want to proceed with the rest of my remarks.
Clearly, we are all in a mood of beneficence, good will and co-operation towards migrants from the EU and from outside the EU. The modern economy that we foster in Britain is dependent on a large degree of migration—we accept that. What we do not accept is the free movement of people unilaterally across the EU. Many Conservative Members do not think that is the right way to proceed. At this stage, before we have even entered into a negotiation, it would be premature to give the cast-iron guarantees that we all want to reach at the end. We all want to get to the stage where we can give these guarantees, but for as long as the rights of British citizens in the EU have not been guaranteed, it would be premature for a British Government to do so. [Interruption.] I can hear the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) chuntering from a sedentary position. He has spent many years in this House. He can ask to intervene in the customary fashion, if he wishes to do so, and I am quite willing to give way.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Can the hon. Gentleman explain the contrast between the 42% rise in hate crime in England in the immediate aftermath of Brexit and a 15% fall in similar statistics in Scotland?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would not presume to talk about the earthly paradise otherwise known as Scotland. I am not going to make any statements about what is going on in Scotland, because I do not have the expertise to do so. However, I do regret the assumption that somehow the Brexit vote was driven by xenophobia and racism, and that the right hon. Gentleman’s party is completely absolved from that.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene once more, and then I want to wrap up.
Alex Salmond
This is not the hon. Gentleman’s responsibility, but he will remember the “Breaking Point” poster during the campaign—not the campaign that he was part of, but it was there for people to see. Does he believe that a poster like that, with Mr Farage in front of it, would tend to be the sort of thing that might incite hate crime?
Kwasi Kwarteng
For the record, I want to state that I denounced that particular intervention from Mr Farage.
Of course we accept the benefits of migration, and of course we want to preserve and guarantee the rights of EU migrants, but today, when the rights of British citizens in the EU have not been guaranteed, it would be premature to give the guarantees that SNP Members seek.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Yesterday evening, I found myself experiencing a very strange sensation that I had not experienced before, because when I started to read the motion tabled by the SNP, I found myself largely agreeing with it—that is, up until the last six words:
“should the UK exit the EU.”
Those six words betray the real reason this motion has been brought to this House—not primarily out of a concern for EU nationals living in the UK, but to continue the referendum debate once again.
Steve Double
I am not going to take an intervention yet.
It has become quite clear, as this debate has gone on, that that is what this is actually about. It is tough for SNP Members having been on the wrong side of public opinion three times in a row in referendums. I would have thought that they had learned the lesson by now that they tend to be on the wrong side and that it is time to give up, yet they seem to be keen on even more referendums.
The fact is that we are leaving the EU. The British people have made a decision and given their very clear instruction to this place, and we will be leaving the EU. There is no “should” about it; it is a question of when we leave the EU.
As I have said, I largely agree with the spirit of the motion, apart from that bit and perhaps one other minor point. The 3 million EU nationals who have made their home in this country, and who are largely here contributing positively to our nation by working and paying their taxes, are very welcome and we want them to stay. No Conservative Member has suggested anything other than that we want those EU nationals to be able to remain in this country and to live, work and contribute to our economy for as long as they wish to. No one has suggested otherwise, and it is disingenuous to suggest that Conservatives have any other desire or motivation.
In my constituency, EU migrants make a huge contribution to our economy. They work in tourism, in bars, restaurants and hotels. They work in agriculture, often seasonally, helping to bring in Cornwall’s variety of excellent produce. They also work in the processing of our excellent seafood and dairy products. They play an absolutely crucial role in our society, and we want them to continue to be able to do so. The Government have made it very clear that that is their intention, but I absolutely support their position that we should not give a cast-iron guarantee on the matter until other EU countries reciprocate. We would be doing a disservice to the British citizens who live in other EU countries if we did so.
Let us remember that our first responsibility is to British citizens, and we should be looking out for their future and wellbeing just as much as anyone else’s. It is absolutely right that we continue that approach and seek those assurances because, as other right hon and hon. Members have pointed out, those assurances have not yet been given. I am absolutely confident that once we are given them, we will reciprocate and guarantee the future of EU nationals who live and work here.
Another point about the motion is that it refers to “all” EU citizens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is no longer in the Chamber, pointed out earlier, there are some EU nationals whom we probably do not wish to keep. By breaking our laws, convicted criminals have abused the hospitality and the welcome that we have given them. It is absolutely right that once they have served their sentences, we should seek to return them to their country of origin. The world “all” is too open, because we do not necessarily want all EU citizens to remain.
Dr Philippa Whitford
May I clarify that the hon. Gentleman wants to guarantee that the various crooks settled on the Costa del Sol will stay there?
Steve Double
I suggest that if those people have broken laws, it is for the Spanish Government to decide what to do with them at the end of their stay at the hospitality of the Spanish Government. The position in this country is absolutely right.
Much has been said by the SNP about the rhetoric that is stirring up uncertainty, but I suggest that such motions create uncertainty by raising the issue when the Government have made absolutely clear their intention and desire for EU citizens to be able to remain in this country.
Steve Double
I will not give way again.
By continuing this debate and continuing to stir up such uncertainty, we are actually creating and perpetuating uncertainty. It is absolutely right for the Government to hold the line that we continue to wait for a similar assurance from other countries and that, once it is given, we will be more than happy to reciprocate and guarantee the future of EU nationals and their right to stay in this country. For those reasons, much as I agree with the spirit of the motion, I will not be able to support it later today.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I, too, agree with the first part of the motion, because I certainly recognise and appreciate the contributions that workers from the EU have made in this country. Some key businesses and public sector services—many hon. Members on both sides of the House have identified them in their own constituencies—are vitally served by EU workers. In my own constituency of Bexhill and Battle, where the proportion of older people is particularly high, none is more key than our care home sector, and we would be in a very difficult position without those EU workers. Of 35 care homes inspected, only nine were rated good, and the rest required improvement or were inadequate, so where would such homes be without key workers from the EU?
I maintain that during the past six years the Government have provided the economic base for many workers to come to Britain and make a great success of themselves. More jobs have been created in the UK during that period than in the rest of the EU put together. Those individuals have come here with great aspiration and a desire to work, as well as endeavour and enterprise. It is in their DNA, and it is certainly in the DNA of my party and my hon. Friends on the Government Benches. In that sense, we certainly do not need any lectures on our support for EU citizens.
I have concerns about the second part of the motion in reference to the future, and I therefore certainly cannot support it. As colleagues on the Government Benches have pointed out, there is a typo in the motion: it says “should” the UK exit the EU, rather than “when” it does so. I did not vote to leave the EU, but in my view, now that the decision has been made, we need to embrace the opportunity and get on with it.
I made this point earlier, but I find it frustrating that there are so many debates in this House about the pitfalls, that we are holding up Ministers and preventing them from getting on with the job and getting it done. There is a certain irony in my position. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is chuckling. He, like me, was in Strasbourg last week, where we were working with our European partners, only for us to come back to the House for a debate about Europe. We could have been in Europe, making friends and building relationships, which would be a better use of our time.
During the last week of the referendum campaign, I visited 25 schools, and I visited another 10 during my own party conference. Teachers and, indeed, pupils consistently asked me questions about the right to remain, to which I made the point that in time, once this is settled, should we leave the EU, I would imagine that the right to remain will absolutely be honoured. I certainly hope that it will be.
I should point out that people who have been here for five years already have the right to remain. Indeed, by the time we exit the EU, those who have come here relatively recently will have reached that five-year point. I therefore find much of this debate slightly false.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. When constituents who are concerned and need reassuring come to my surgeries—3,000 eastern Europeans live in my constituency —I make the point he has just made. Five out of every six EU nationals living in this country either already have the right to remain or will have it by the time we leave the EU. The 2.9 million EU nationals living in the UK today have nothing to worry about.
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend makes a fine point. Like me, he is a lawyer. I am not sure how many of the 1.2 million UK citizens resident in the EU have the same right. To support those 1.2 million people, it is even more imperative to ensure that they have the same right to remain as the five out of six EU citizens working here to whom he refers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) pointed out that no Government Members—indeed, this does not seem to be debated at all, except on Opposition motions—are calling for any rights to remain in the UK to be rescinded. Nobody on our Benches is using the words “bargaining chips”. I point that out because the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), whose speech I listened to carefully, used those words about five times. Such rhetoric is coming from SNP Members, not those on this side of the House. I ask Opposition Members to be a little more responsible with their language, because that sort of language is not being used by those of us on the Government Benches. We absolutely must ensure that we serve the rights of those from EU member states working in the UK, but we must give equal priority to serving those people from the UK living in the EU. I hope that the official Opposition and the SNP will start to talk in the same language and even things up.
In the minute remaining to me, I want to caution against using the EU referendum result in the separate debate on immigration. I recognise that 52% of the country voted to leave the EU, but nowhere within that was there a definitive mandate for curbing or controlling immigration. I know that many people—including colleagues on the Government Benches—will say that the immigration debate was implicit in the referendum, but from my perspective, all we know is that 52% of the UK voted to leave, so 48% voted to remain, and nothing more. Similarly, we do not know that a large chunk of the 52% were duped into voting to leave the EU; we know only that we are leaving, and that is that.
In a recent YouGov poll, two thirds of people stated that they wanted to see immigration reduced, somewhat busting my argument. However, when asked how much they would pay personally for it to be reduced, about the same amount said zero, and therefore that they would be willing to have the same number of immigrants in this country. I add that purely as a note of caution. I recognise that we are leaving the EU, but I return to my real passion for making sure that we protect the EU workers who have come this country and that we do not use the referendum as anything other than a decision to leave the EU.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The contribution of EU nationals to our country is difficult to overstate, which is why I do not disagree with a word of the first part of the motion. There are now 3 million EU nationals living in the UK. They are overwhelmingly in employment, living decent, law-abiding lives and enhancing British society. A fact that has sometimes been lost in the discussions about immigration over recent months is that the success of the British economy over recent years owes a great deal to the contribution of EU nationals. In 2014, more jobs were created in the county of Yorkshire than in the whole of France, and more jobs were generated in the UK than in the rest of the EU put together. EU nationals have helped to build that success, and in doing so helped to pull our country back from the financial abyss we were staring into in 2010.
In Cheltenham alone, Polish nationals in particular have, in a short period, become part of the backbone of our community and our way of life. They are there working in Monkscroft care home, in Cheltenham general hospital, in the shops on the Promenade and in our bars and restaurants, and the overwhelming majority of them do so quietly, diligently and uncomplainingly. Their work ethic and “can do” attitude are an object lesson. They seek nothing more than the right to stand on their own two feet. The message that must ring out from this Chamber then is that those who have come and built their lives here are welcome, valued and respected.
In that context, it is—unusually, perhaps—hard to disagree with the SNP sentiment, but I fear that the motion appears to be political. I am sorry to say that it appears to be mischief-making at best and irresponsible at worst. I say that with some diffidence, because much of what comes from SNP Front-Bench spokesmen bears listening to. I have concerns about the motion, however.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) indicated, the fact is that by the time Brexit happens—I was a remainer—the overwhelming majority of EU nationals will have the right to remain in the United Kingdom because they will have indefinite leave to remain.
Alex Chalk
Let me just develop my point and then I will come to the hon. Lady.
Secondly, let us be clear: EU nationals are not going to be required to leave. It is not going to happen. I would not vote for it. The House would not vote for it. It would be morally bankrupt and economically ruinous. There is therefore a danger that the motion unnecessarily sets hares running. It stokes fear when none need exist.
The reality is that the duty of any British Government—this is plain as a pikestaff—is to protect the rights of their citizens. The SNP’s contributions have been disappointing because they have not acknowledged the fair point that 1 million British citizens living abroad want reassurance, too, because—guess what?—they have families, jobs and livelihoods that they do not want to lose. It is a fair point that no EU Head of State has provided our nationals with that reassurance, including Scottish nationals.
Joanna Cherry
If the rights of British citizens living abroad were so important to the Conservative party, why did it not give them a vote in the EU referendum?
Alex Chalk
I am always grateful for interventions, but with respect that is a bit of a distraction. That is not what we are focusing on here. We are focusing on the rights of British nationals overseas and EU nationals in the UK. It is wrong for us to be sidetracked in that way.
The SNP is right that this has to be resolved. I am concerned—I am sure some of my colleagues are, too—about this dragging on. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made a fair point about the Council summit tomorrow. I hope the opportunity will be taken to discuss the matter with Heads of State. Make no mistake, we are dealing with people here. It is incumbent upon Heads of State in Europe and our own Government to grasp the nettle and put the issue to bed, but, for the reasons I set out, I am not in a position to support the motion.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
As I rise, I look across at Government Members who are probably thinking that I am a principal scaremongerer. I was the first on the SNP Benches to raise the issue of EU nationals in this House. I raised it before the referendum vote when, because of the leave campaign, two of my constituents, originally from Germany, Thomas and Elke Westen, said to me that such was their concern about the way immigration was being discussed they were leaving the UK. They did not want to be around for the vote. They had been denied a vote by the Government. They were allowed to have a vote in the referendum on Scotland, but not on the European referendum. They said that if there was going to be a vote to leave the EU they would choose to leave and go to an EU country. I have tried all I can to persuade them to stay, but in the past two weeks they have put their house up for sale, they are closing their business and they are seeking to move back. That is not scaremongering. That is recognising the real effect on human beings living in our country.
Alex Salmond
Throughout the debate there has been a refrain from those on the Tory Benches that there is nothing really to worry about. The Chancellor has just been questioned by the Treasury Committee about this exact point. He said he hoped there would be an agreement, but then went on to say that if UK and EU failed to reach such an agreement, then under a migration scheme that was unilateral we would have choices to make about how we would choose to deal with those EU nationals in the UK. It would be a matter for the UK to decide. It is hardly a wonder that people are frightened when that is what the Chancellor says.
Roger Mullin
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That harks back to the opening remarks of the Immigration Minister, who is no longer in the Chamber. At one stage in his speech he was trying to provide reassurance and say there was no uncertainty, but he also said that he was not in a position to set out a definitive position. Why not? He went on to say that it was because it would not be good negotiating practice.
Alan Brown
My hon. Friend correctly says that EU nationals were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum, but did not get a vote in the EU referendum. Another symbol that the UK Government are throwing down is that they are now changing legislation so that British nationals living abroad get a vote for life. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another clear national divide?
Roger Mullin
I agree entirely.
I want to move on to tackle a question raised by Government Members, who asked us whether we were not also concerned about the rights of British citizens living abroad. Well, I can tell them that I am. I will tell them who first raised this concern with me: Tracy de Jongh Eglin, who lives in the Netherlands. She contacted me some months ago. What worried her was that when the UK Government were saying “This is negotiable”, they were saying that it was not just EU national citizens’ positions here that were negotiable, but British citizens’ rights abroad, too. The UK Government are the ones who have created this insecurity for EU nationals here and for British nationals overseas.
When negotiations are entered into, uncertainty is automatically created. It cannot be otherwise, because negotiations involve the trading of positions. I have a question and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer it in his reply: what is it that he is willing to trade away in these negotiations? He must have something tradable in mind; otherwise, there would be no negotiations. Negotiations do not have to be “symmetrical” where the citizenship status here has to be negotiated with respect to people in a similar position elsewhere. It is possible to have asymmetrical negotiations, which would mean trying to secure the rights of British citizens by utilising economic levers, for example, so there is absolutely no moral justification and no negotiating justification for the uncertainty that this Government have created both for EU nationals and for British citizens overseas.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. The motion is quite simple: it is about EU nationals retaining their current rights. When Conservative Members applaud the sentiment behind the motion but say they are unable to vote for it, what they are really doing is to send snarling signals to Europe of this House’s attitude to EU nationals retaining their current rights. They should not do that; they should vote for the SNP motion today. They should, for once, send the right signal from the UK.
Roger Mullin
I agree entirely.
It is not enough to say that we want people to stay here; it is more about allowing those people to have rights. The problem at the moment is that many of the rights that individuals hold in our society are rights that they have because they are EU citizens and fall under EU law. It is under EU law that they have a right to work here, the right to retire here, the right to a vote in some elections, the right to access welfare and the right to access health services. These are EU-guaranteed rights. We want to see those rights enshrined in law here.
Alex Salmond
The Chancellor continues to caw the feet from the Tory case as presented in this Chamber. He has now said to the Select Committee that there will be no migration curbs on bankers under Brexit, so the bankers will be fine, but my hon. Friend’s constituents will be struggling.
Roger Mullin
I thank my right hon. Friend for that quite astonishing point. Does that not speak to the morality of Conservative Members?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but there is an additional right that is important while these negotiations are going on. It is the right to safety, particularly when we look at what has happened to members of the Polish community, which seems to be taking the brunt of all this anti-European sentiment. Surely they have a right to reassurance here.
Roger Mullin
The hon. Gentleman makes a wonderful point. I have been in discussions in my own constituency with a body called the migrant forum, the majority of whose members are of Polish extraction. They have been coming to me with concerns, wanting to find ways to gain reassurance. It is not good enough for some Conservative Members to say, “They should not be frightened and they should not be uncertain, but by the way, we are putting you into the negotiation pot none the less.” That is not reassurance. It is perfectly understandable that people are feeling uncertain and insecure about their rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) put that point wonderfully when she talked about her own husband, a doctor and a fine man—I have met him—who has been working here for 30 years. With his background, he is not going to be easily scared or put off, but there is uncertainty in his mind as well as in thousands upon thousands of people’s minds.
I held a meeting in my constituency, and 40 EU citizens came along to talk about their anxieties. These are real anxieties, and the Government should do the right thing. The Minister should stand up now and guarantee all those people’s rights in our country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I congratulate the Scottish National party on securing the debate. We have been dealing with a very important issue: the status of EU nationals living in the UK following the EU referendum and the decision of the British people to leave the EU. I am very glad that Parliament has had a chance to debate the issue in detail, and I commend the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) for bringing it to the attention of the House. I am also delighted to face across the Dispatch Box, for the first time, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). We have served together on Select Committees in the past, and I think that we share a number of very similar values. I look forward to working with him on future debates.
Having listened carefully to what has been said today, I would say that tone is important. As we were told by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), we should be here to provide reassurance, and I hope that I shall be able to provide some now.
We have heard a number of excellent speeches. It was great to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (James Cleverly), for Cardiff North (Craig Williams), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness made some thoughtful comments about immigration issues, which were picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). That is, of course, a debate for another time. I think it important for us to focus today on the rights of EU nationals, and on the point that so many of my hon. Friends have made about the rights that we must secure for UK nationals as well.
Let me begin by making it absolutely clear that the Government want to protect the status of EU nationals who are resident in the UK. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be those in which British citizens’ rights in other EU member states were not protected in return, and, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I find it hard—near impossible—to imagine that scenario arising.
As Members in all parts of the House have made clear today, EU citizens make an invaluable contribution to our country, and the Government welcome that contribution. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), I recognise it from my own constituency. We all agree that steps must be taken to guarantee the status of the EU nationals who have chosen to build a life here in the UK. The House clearly feels strongly about the matter, and the Government will seek a swift solution when discussions with the EU begin.
That brings me to my second point. While it is a Government priority to address this issue as soon as possible, the fact remains that we need an agreement in order to do so. It would be inappropriate and irresponsible to set out unilateral positions at this stage. Just last week, the House voted on a motion which provided for parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process but included the provision that we should not do anything to undermine the Government’s negotiating position. The Government understand the importance of giving certainty to EU citizens who have moved to build a life in the UK, but we are not able to set out a unilateral position now, ahead of negotiations; that must be done following negotiation and agreement with the EU. Doing otherwise would risk adversely affecting our negotiating position, and hence the position of British citizens who have chosen to build a life, with their families, in other countries. My hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for Bexhill and Battle made that point very clearly.
Mr Walker
I will not give way for the time being.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) created an entirely new area of fear by talking about some kind of trade-off in terms of numbers. It was the first time that I had ever heard such a suggestion, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is certainly not something that we have been contemplating.
The Government want the same fair treatment for British and EU citizens. That is a sensible position to take, and the Government are confident that they will be able to achieve their aim in agreement with the EU. We have already made it clear that this is a priority for negotiations. Only last week, the excellent Leader of the Opposition in Scotland was pressing the case on the open door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
This brings me to my final key point in this section: the status of EU nationals living in the UK will not change while the UK remains a member of the EU. It is important to remember that we remain a full member of the EU with all the rights and responsibilities of EU membership until the end of the article 50 process.
We have heard contributions from Members on both sides of the House and of this debate who are married to EU citizens, and I commend them for their statements. They raised real concerns about EU nationals and their status, but it appears to me that there is near unanimity in this House on providing reassurance. We should all be seeking to do that in our comments.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that platitude reassurance is not real reassurance? Reassurance has been given to students; why not give it to resident EU nationals? Otherwise it will be three years from the vote until we know what is going to happen.
Mr Walker
As I have already pointed out, during those three years it is the Government’s absolute intention to secure the rights of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU as early in the negotiations as we can.
I think that is reassurance. Let me be clear that EU nationals and citizens can continue to live, work and study here in the UK under existing EU law. They will also be able to be accompanied or joined by family members. I know the whole House will agree that it is important that we make this clear and continue to provide reassurance to all our constituents.
Alex Salmond
I understand what the Minister says and it all sounds very good, but why was the Chancellor this afternoon able to give specific assurance about bankers that apparently the Minister is unable to give to the rest of our EU citizens?
Mr Walker
We should not be trying to create an atmosphere of fear. We should set out the reassurances I have given and will continue to give.
In conclusion, EU nationals can have the Government’s complete reassurance that there is no immediate change to their right to enter, work, study and live in the UK as a result of the EU referendum. I reassure EU citizens in Scotland and up and down the country generally that we recognise the enormous contribution they make to our economy, our health service, our schools, our care sector and our communities. We will act fairly towards them as we expect other EU countries to act fairly to our citizens living there.
Mr Walker
I will not give way again.
We have heard from all parts of the UK and all sides of the referendum debate today, and as we move forward we must seek to bring the whole country together. Given that the UK and the EU would like to maintain a close and friendly relationship, the Government are confident that we will work together and that EU and British citizens will be protected through a reciprocal agreement. Because this motion fails to acknowledge that, and because of its technical failings which were pointed out by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject it.
Question put.
Speaker’s Statement (Select Committee Chairs)
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I can now announce the results of the Select Committee Chair elections held today. Nominations for the five vacant Select Committee Chairs closed yesterday and elections were held by secret ballot today.
No ballot was necessary for the International Trade Committee, for which a single nomination had been received. The Chair of that Committee will be Angus Brendan MacNeil.
In the four contested elections, a total of 546 ballot papers were submitted, the ballots being counted under the alternative vote system. The following candidates were elected:
Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Damian Collins
Exiting the European Union Committee: Hilary Benn
Home Affairs Committee: Yvette Cooper
Science and Technology Committee: Stephen Metcalfe.
The full breakdown of voting in each contest indicating the votes attributable to each candidate after each redistribution of the votes of eliminated candidates is set out in a paper available from the Vote Office. The Members so elected take up their positions immediately, except in the case of the Chairs of the Exiting the European Union and International Trade Committees, who will formally take up their positions when their Committees have been nominated by the House. I warmly congratulate all the right hon. and hon. Members concerned. I should like to thank—on behalf of the House, I am sure—all the candidates who participated in the elections, and I know that the House will want to join me in thanking very warmly all the staff of the House who so efficiently facilitated the conduct of the elections.
House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the size of the unelected House of Lords which, with more than 800 members, is considerably larger than the elected House of Commons; believes that there is no case in a modern democracy for the number of members of an unelected chamber to exceed the number of members of the democratically elected House; cannot condone any Government action that may increase the number of unelected members while reducing the number of elected Members of Parliament, particularly when there are no published plans to concurrently reduce the number of Ministers or amount of support to Government departments; believes that, in the event of an exit from the EU, the return of significant powers will mean additional work for a smaller number of Members of Parliament; calls on the Government to put in place plans to significantly reduce the number of unelected Lords; further calls for a full review of reform of the House of Lords; and calls on the Government to abandon any plans to reduce the number of Members of Parliament until the issue of the size of the unelected chamber is resolved.
May I be the first to congratulate the worthy winners of the Select Committee elections? I also congratulate everybody on making it such a little festival of democracy within these hallowed chambers. Everybody appreciates the opportunity to have a say in who sits on these Select Committees once again.
What on earth is going on in our so-called parliamentary democracy? How can we possibly reach a state in which we have more parliamentarians in these Houses of Parliament appointed by a Prime Minister than elected by the people? In what sort of parallel political universe can it be a good thing to continue to increase the membership of an unelected House while simultaneously seeking to reduce the number of directly elected Members of Parliament? Has anyone had a look at that place down the corridor? Has anyone taken a cursory glance at its membership? It is an utter undemocratic disgrace. It is an antiquated, absurd Chamber stuffed full of cronies, donors, placemen, former MPs and failed MPs.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He asks whether anyone has seen how the other place operates but—come on!—has he heard any of the debates? Has he heard the contributions from distinguished lawyers, surgeons, architects and others, some of whom have more expertise than those in this place?
Pete Wishart
I want to go on to forensically look at the membership of the House of Lords, and I hope the hon. Gentleman listens carefully to the type of people we have assembled in that place because they are undemocratic horrors. There are now 812 Members of the House of Lords, making it the second largest legislature in the world behind the People’s Congress of China.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should reduce the size of the House of Lords and that we could do so simply? We could get rid of 21 of the 26 bishops, along with 92 hereditary peers, and we could have mandatory retirement, whereby peers retire after 20 years—this would be based not on age, but on length of service. That would easily take care of 212-plus peers and the House of Lords would be smaller than House of Commons.
Pete Wishart
I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this issue I recognise, that that would be a start but that much more needs to be done to address the anomalies of the political circus down the corridor. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). He is right to say that there are people serving in the Lords who are technocrats and the great and the good. These people have been appointed by the independent Lords Appointments Commission, but they are a tiny minority. The House of Lords tries to project this image of itself as inviting in the great and the good to help us with our legislation, but the overwhelming majority of the membership of that House is appointed by a Prime Minister from the list supplied by the leaders of the UK parties. That is why we find the cronies, the placemen, the donors and the failed or former MPs.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I find myself discombobulated in agreeing with some of the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. Do I infer from his comments that if the other place were to take a decision in the future with which he agreed but then set its face against the Salisbury convention and a commitment enunciated in our party’s manifesto in government, he would not support the Lords and would reiterate his view that peers are unelected and that they lack democratic accountability and authority?
Pete Wishart
I would support Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and their many hordes if it helped to defeat this Government. I have no issue or problem with supporting the House of Lords when it gets something right, but that does not make it any better on these issues. I have sensed the pain in the past few months of so many Conservative Back Benchers who have looked at this place and got increasingly upset that the Lords has defied its will. This Government do not particularly like to be challenged, but the fact that they are being challenged by an unelected, undemocratic House is beginning to disturb the Conservative party, and so I say join us in dealing with this undemocratic disgrace.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I agree that we should be doing something about the House of Lords quickly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an intelligent character, so perhaps he can help me out with some maths. The current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister have wanted to cut the number in this place from 650 to 600 to save £12 million, yet they have stuffed the other place, costing £34 million. To me, that sounds like a cost, not a saving.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is spot on, although actually it is worse than that, as the last figures we have are for 2014-15, when the cost of the House of Lords was approaching £100 million—that is what we are actually spending on it. Instead of reducing that, this Government’s sole intention and ambition on the House of Lords is to continue to increase the size of that place.
Let us take a cursory look at our latest batch of new parliamentarians—the 16 new appointees from the former Prime Minister’s resignation list. This list was oozing and dripping with patronage and cronyism. We now have 16 shiny new parliamentarians to welcome to these Houses of Parliament, but let us look at who they are. Thirteen of them are Conservative—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Let me tell people exactly what they are like before they say that. Five of them were senior members of staff in the former Prime Minister’s office, with one a former special adviser to that Prime Minister. One was a special adviser to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. One is a Conservative treasurer who just so happened to have given the Conservative party millions and millions of pounds over the years. Curiously—this is the one that gets me—one is the former leader of the Conservative remain campaign, who, I suggest, is not getting a peerage for any great success that he has delivered to the Conservative party.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
I rise to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative leader of the remain campaign is a she, not a he. If the hon. Gentleman professes to be an expert on appointments to that Chamber, it would at least be appropriate for him to recognise that it achieves gender balance as well as having many other virtues.
Pete Wishart
There are many things that can be defined as redeeming features, and that is one that I accept, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.
The new parliamentarians of Great Britain are strangers to the ballot box, but very good friends of the former Prime Minister.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Following the right hon. Gentleman’s point on gender balance, may I help the hon. Gentleman by saying that, among the hereditary peers, there are currently 91 men and one woman?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The new creations are exactly the savvy sort of people that we should have in the House of Lords. However, the reason why we are in this position of an unreformed House of Lords is that there was insufficient consensus in this place on how to replace it. Is he going to set out his plan for the other place?
Pete Wishart
If anything, that sounds like a manifesto from the right hon. Gentleman to get himself a good place in the House of Lords, and I wish him all the best in that ambition.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for mentioning the hereditaries, because that brings me on to my next point. Although the new appointees are bad enough, there are some other cracking undemocratic horrors skulking in the corridors down the road. They are the aristocrats, the 91 Members of Parliament who have the opportunity to design, fashion, shape, issue and supervise our laws because of birthright—because they are the first son of a family that won a decisive battle in the middle ages. The one thing I do like about the hereditaries is that they bring an element of democracy to the House of Lords—did Members know that? It is the surreal and bizarre contest that they have when one of their number dies. The earls, the counts, the barons, the lords and the ladies of the land get together to replenish their numbers. It is the weirdest electorate in the world. It may be the poshest and most exclusive electorate that can be found anywhere, but at least there is that element of democracy in the House of Lords.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Among the posh selectors was a group of three Liberal life peers who chose one of their number. On the point about bringing democracy to the Lords, would not a small improvement be a ballot of the life peers, so that we at least have a natural way of getting rid of some of them while perhaps injecting some democracy into their veins, despite them not liking it?
Pete Wishart
Only land-locked Lesotho has elders as a feature of its democracy. This is the mother of all parliaments for goodness’ sake, and we still have people here because of birthright! It is absurd.
Pete Wishart
I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before. [Interruption.] Oh, well, I will give way.
Michael Gove
Once again, I will have to correct the hon. Gentleman on a point of fact. This is not the mother of all parliaments. The original phrase the “mother of parliaments” refers to this country, not to this institution, and the “mother of all” is a prefix associated with the Iraq war. If he is going to pack so many factual errors into his speech, how can we possibly take him seriously as a constitutional or any other sort of authority? He was a marvellous player and lyricist for Runrig, but as a constitutional theoretician, I am afraid that, sadly, he falls short.
Pete Wishart
On a positive note, I am very grateful that we have the right hon. Gentleman in this Chamber to correct me. I always thought that he had an issue with experts, but, clearly, he is a self-appointed one himself. We will let him get away with it just now.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On that point, perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The department of economics at Oxford has a breakdown of the average cost of each peer in the House of Lords. It is very interesting reading: £100,000 for Conservatives, £140,000 for Labour and £99,000 for Liberal Democrat Members of the House of Lords.
Pete Wishart
Again, that is probably average estimated figures.
There we have it. Those are the aristocratic Members of the House of Lords. Just to make it even more surreal —I think that somebody has mentioned this already—26 places are reserved for bishops in their cassocks. They are not just any ordinary bishops in their cassocks; they have to be Church of England bishops in their cassocks. Again, this is the only legislature in the world that has a place reserved for clerics other than the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The coup de grâce, the ultimate horror of the membership of the House of Lords, is not the aristocrats or the bishops. It is the fact that we still have 104 Liberal Democrat peers. Roundly rejected by the electorate, the Liberal Democrats are kept alive in that crypt on a political life support system. People of Britain, welcome to your legislators! We have aristocrats, bishops and unelected Liberal Democrats. Is that not a great contribution?
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman is serious about reducing the size of the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) mentioned a moment ago, has he thought of a system whereby we have indirect elections based on the number of votes cast in the general election, with each party having an electoral college, with perhaps a ceiling of 500 peers, as an interim measure? That would suit the hon. Gentleman’s party and it would remove the outrage of 104 Lib Dem peers in the House of Lords.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable suggestion, but I am not going to suggest how we conclusively deal with the issue. All I am saying to the House today is that we must deal with it. We cannot continue to increase the numbers in the House of Lords while decreasing the numbers in this place. I would respect any suggestion that came forward, as long as it deals seriously with that.
While describing the other place and all its undemocratic horrors, we still have the audacity to lecture the developing world about the quality of its democracies. We have the gall to tick developing countries off about corruption, patronage and cronyism when we have a Chamber down the corridor that is appointed by a Prime Minister. How dare we suggest that to the developing world when we have such an absurd, chaotic system?
Because the House of Lords is a stranger to democracy, because it is in the hands of a small elite and because it is an appointed, created Parliament, there will always be a temptation to delve into the outer edges of corruptibility. The only qualifying characteristic and feature that some of the appointees seem to have is the ability to give large amounts of money to one of the main UK parties. This was tested to the limit by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) when he raised the question of cash for honours, one of the biggest political scandals of the past decades, where we saw a sitting Prime Minister being questioned by the police and some of his key members of staff and fundraisers actually elected. That is what we have done. We have created a Chamber that is immensely corruptible, and we should take that on board.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I intend to vote for the hon. Gentleman’s motion this evening because I agree with much of what he is saying. He said that money was the only qualification. Does he accept that one of the other qualifications that appears to be gaining ground is to have been rejected by the electorate? On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I was always a big supporter of the House of Lords because it was full of people who were the most eminent in society. Now it is becoming full of second-raters and people who have been rejected by the electorate. Perhaps that is why the Lib Dems are not represented in this debate—maybe they are embarrassed about their representatives down in the other place.
Pete Wishart
They should be thoroughly embarrassed about their membership there because it is the only thing that sustains them as a political force.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I will vote with the hon. Gentleman tonight and I think it is a good motion, but I am not certain where this will lead. He talks about a reduction in numbers. Would not the best course be to abolish the other place? I had the privilege in a previous Parliament of proposing that, so that we start from zero. Will the hon. Gentleman outline a plan to replace the House of Lords?
Pete Wishart
I shall suggest certain things that we could consider to replace it. The House of Lords is unreformable and there is nothing we could do with it. It has got out of control. It is like a huge undemocratic leviathan cloaked in ermine that would continue to feed on patronage and cronyism. It has very few redeemable features.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, find myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Is not the real issue for constituents and our democracy not just the absurdity of the House of Lords, but the boundary review that sees the number of seats in this place being reduced, the use of an out-of-date register leading to people being disfranchised, a political system that does not represent our nations or regions properly in our constitution, and a Government who have taken away the powers of civil society to criticise them? There is a package of things damaging our democracy.
Pete Wishart
I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his support. I will come on to the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in this House, because it is important. I thought it was important to link the issues of us growing an unelected House while shrinking the number of representatives of the people. It is right that those issues are linked, because they are going on concurrently. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Pete Wishart
May I make a bit of progress, if that is all right? I have been very generous in giving way. I will try to give way later.
I want to speak about one of the other major features of the House of Lords: the deference—all the forelock-tugging to all these lords and ladies, and this idea of the high and mighty. We still have this political culture in the 21st century of showing deference to these people in ermine and of knowing your place and respecting your betters. Imagine designing a Chamber where that was still a feature of how we conducted our parliamentary debates.
I actually looked for the House of Lords TV channel the other day, and I came across the fantasy adventure “Game of Thrones” instead. I was listening to some of the language being used, and it struck me that the House of Lords is so like “Game of Thrones”, but without the dragons, beheadings and the proper bending of the knee— that is how ridiculous that institution down the road is. One of the first things we have to do is get rid of all this 13th-century, medieval deference and create a modern, 21st-century establishment, to make sure that we get proper representation in the second Chamber.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are countries around the world that we can learn from? Countries such as Australia, ironically enough, have upper Chambers that are based on ours, but they have managed to leap ahead and to have elected Chambers. Actually, the Queensland Parliament has abolished its upper Chamber, which is now a tourist attraction. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not make progress, we will fall behind in the world in terms of the democratic process?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would love to see that place as a tourist attraction. We could stuff some of its Members so that we could see them. They are all dressed like a demented Santa Claus. It would be fantastic: maybe we could have a Christmas fantasy or something as a feature of a visitor attraction. That is where we are, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
What is the Government’s intention when it comes to the House of Lords? Well, there seems to be only one ambition, and that is to stuff it full with even more cronies and donors. We have seen the latest additions. I do not know whether this is the Government’s intention—perhaps the Minister could clarify—but I get the impression they are trying to secure a majority in the House of Lords, because they are unhappy with the defeats they have experienced at its hands in the past few months. I have not done my sums properly on that, but I suspect that it would still involve another 30 to 50 new Members, taking its membership up to 900. That would bring it very close to overtaking the People’s Congress of China. Is that what the Government really intend to do?
At the same time—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—the Government seek to reduce the number of elected Members of this House. This House—this nation—should be appalled at that prospect; we should be demanding that it is addressed and reversed. How on earth can we, as a Chamber, agree to the idea of stuffing that place even fuller, while the Government reduce the number of representatives of the people—us, the directly elected Members of Parliament.
Dr Murrison
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I quite like his motion, as it happens; it certainly has the virtue of being better than the previous one we debated. He has hit on exactly the point, which is the oversized nature of the House of Lords. It is a serious point. Does he agree that, in the context of the diminution of the expertise that appointees to the House of Lords are able to bring, there is nothing more “ex” than an ex-expert? Does he agree, furthermore, that one way of dealing with that lack of contemporaneous knowledge and understanding that the Lords bring is to limit their term of office? As a short-term measure, we could create something called a “term peer”, which would reduce the numbers and make sure that those in the House of Lords are actually contemporary.
Pete Wishart
There is very little about that that I cannot agree with—it is a very good suggestion. The reason we brought this motion to the House was to invite such contributions from Members.
I know that lots of Conservative Members will not support our motion, but—I am taking this as a positive—I am beginning to sense a desire to address this, and we should work together as a House to do so. We first have to accept that there is something drastically wrong with the second Chamber—that it is not working and is starting to embarrass us. In the past, Conservative Members have always said that it is not an issue for them—“Why touch something that people are not concerned about?”—but I am beginning to sense a turnaround in that sentiment. A number of national newspapers have taken this up as a campaigning issue that they want to have addressed. As I have seen in my mailbag, more and more people are concerned about the quality of our democracy. If we allow a political circus like this to stand, we diminish our own role as the nation’s representatives. We are allowing it to continue as a feature of our democracy when we should be tackling it. I encourage hon. Members, even if they are not going to support us tonight, to look seriously at how we start to do so.
I was in the House when we previously looked at this—I am going back about 10 years now—and I voted for all the proposals that suggested replacing the Lords with a majority of elected Members. There was another failed attempt to address it at the time of the coalition Government. It is now incumbent on the Leader of the House—I am glad that he has joined us—to come forward with solid proposals on how we address this, because we have to do it: we cannot let it stand.
Today I, along with all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who has left us, found out about our new constituencies. The Government intend to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament from 59 to 53—six will be lost under their proposals to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. I had a little look to see how many Scottish Lords there are. I found 61 who have registered addresses in Scotland, and that is apart from the aristocrats and landed gentry who have lands and estates in my country. The number of Members of Parliament in Scotland has been cut from 72, when I was first elected, to 53, so we now have more Scottish peers than Scottish Members of Parliament.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the starkest illustration of how bad things have become is that if the United Kingdom—or what was left of it at the time—tried to get back into the European Union at any point, it would be disqualified from membership because countries that were under Stalinist dictatorships 25 or 30 years ago are more democratic?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I will let stand on its own merits.
The Government say that they are reducing the number of Members of this House to save money. Of course, if the number is reduced from 650 to 600, savings will be made—that will happen as a natural consequence of spending less.
Pete Wishart
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so I will try to make a bit of progress and come back to him later if I have time.
We are reducing the number of Members of this House to save money, but at no point do we look at what is going on down the corridor. As I said earlier, the cost of the House of Lords is now a cool £100 million—that is the operating cost for a year. Members of the House of Lords get £300 just for turning up or £150 for working from home, and these are tax-free allowances. That figure of £100 million works out at about £100,000 per peer. For the same cost as these 800 part-time peers, we could have 300 democratically elected and accountable peers on an MP’s salary.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Two of my constituents, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, sit along there in the House of Lords. Last year, Lord Forsyth cost £46,346 and Lord Robertson cost £19,708. I was on the front page of the local paper because of how much it costs for me to come down here and do my job and employ staff. I wonder when newspapers will print that kind of information about how much our Lords are costing us.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend makes an important point that brings me on to my next subject—value for money.
We know how hard we work in this place. We have constituents whom we have to represent and make sure that their interests are brought to this House. The Lords have none of that. Some of them barely turn up. Some of them have barely been in for a debate or made any parliamentary contributions at all. Yet we are prepared to have this huge expense to sustain that place while the number of Members of Parliament who come down here and work hard for their constituents day in, day out is being cut.
I want to say a couple of other things about the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. The Government are in the process of taking us out of the European Union, and when the 73 Members of the European Parliament, who have significant powers, are no longer there, we will be expected to take up that work. An increased workload will fall on a smaller number of Members of Parliament when we no longer have Members of the European Parliament working for us in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Although the Government intend to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, they have absolutely no plans whatsoever to reduce the numbers in Government. Instead of attempting in any way to reduce the size of Whitehall, they have made sure that there are more Departments, more special advisers and more civil servants. If there is to be any reduction in the number of Members of this place, surely there should be a reduction in the number of people who serve in this Government.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point. Our workload will increase if and when Britain withdraws from Europe and we no longer have any Euro MPs, and the change in the boundaries will increase the workload further.
Pete Wishart
Absolutely, and we have an increasing population. I still do not know the Government’s case for the reduction in the number of MPs—well, I think I know why they decided to reduce the number of MPs. I think it was an attempt to stuff the Labour party, but the Labour party does not need any favours, help or assistance in that regard. It seems to be doing a pretty good job of that on its own.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair on that point. I think that the decision was made to reduce the number of MPs because in 2010, when the policy came forward, there was a great deal of public feeling that MPs had become too expensive. It was a response to the national mood at the time.
Pete Wishart
Of course there is a national mood in favour of such a cut. If we were to ask any member of the public whether they would like to see the size of Parliament and Government reduced—I am sure I will find this when I go back to my constituency at the weekend—they would say, “Yes, of course.” My point, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman might respect this, is that we seem to be reducing the number of elected Members but letting the other place grow exponentially. That is the key point. I am beginning to get the sense that the public are starting to look at what we have got down the corridor and deciding that we have to do this. Enough is enough.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend has mentioned that there are 61 peers from Scotland but the number of MPs is going down. Is that not simply more grist to the mill and another reason why people will, this time, vote for independence in the second referendum that will come within two years of the triggering of article 50?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has been generous to a fault in giving way, and I think that that is appreciated by the House. May I very gently make the point that 11 Back-Bench Members wish to contribute, and the Chair will be looking to call the Front-Bench wind-ups at approximately 6.40 pm? There will have to be a very tight time limit on Back-Bench contributions, a fact of which I know the hon. Gentleman will wish to take account in the continuation and conclusion of his eloquent contribution.
Pete Wishart
As you say, Mr Speaker, I was coming to my peroration. I have been as generous as possible when it comes to interventions.
Enough is enough. Surely, now is the time to address this matter. We have to look at what we are doing with the House of Lords. I am immensely proud of my party for failing to take places in the House of Lords, and I appeal to the Labour party to take no more places in the House of Lords. Several things have to happen almost immediately. There must be no more new Lords. We need a moratorium on appointments to the House of Lords. The Leader of the House must bring forward plans to reduce significantly the membership of the Lords, with a view to abolishing that place.
The House of Lords is a national embarrassment that should shame the country. It needs to be looked at and it needs to be reformed. Let us make this nation proud by creating a second Chamber that represents this country. Let us start to look at ways to address this. No more cronies in ermine; let us have a democratic Chamber.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
It is a pleasure to open for Her Majesty’s Government in this debate, and a particular pleasure to debate with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), if saying so is not too deferential for him.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject. It is vital that our Parliament works effectively, and the House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising and revising the legislation that governs us all. If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman does a disservice to Members of the House of Lords who work very hard and are very valuable public servants. In many cases, they have been public servants for decades and devoted their lives to public service. In that House, there are leaders of industry and business who bring to it incredibly valuable expertise. There are Law Lords—formerly Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—as well as former Cabinet Ministers and Chiefs of the Defence Staff, so there is vast experience and expertise that is not available in this House or in many second Chambers in bicameral legislatures around the world. That House is replete with considerable expertise and experience.
Mr MacNeil
One of two things follow from what the Deputy Leader of the House has said. He is saying either that it is such a good arrangement down the corridor that we should abolish the Commons and repeat that arrangement in this place, or that other countries in the world should follow the same arrangement, in which case which ones would he advise to do so?
Michael Ellis
I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that this country has centuries of history, and we should recognise that our system has evolved over those centuries. That does not alter the fact that the House of Lords has vastly experienced people from all fields of life—doctors, lawyers and the like—but we recognise, as was clear from the Conservative party manifesto last year, that it cannot continue to grow indefinitely.
We must keep the question of the size of the House of Lords in perspective. Members of the Lords are not full-time or salaried. Many peers balance professional lives outside the House with work in it, so they do not attend all the time. It is a mischaracterisation to portray it as though 800 Members were permanently in the House. In fact, when one looks at the average daily attendance in the last session—I invite hon. Members to do so—we see that it is below 500. The figure is 497, which is well short of the number of Members of the House of Commons. To use a journalistic phrase, 800 is the figure for the available talent.
Mr Jackson
Did my hon. Friend notice an omission from the witty and erudite speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)? He had the brass neck to complain about over-representation, but Scottish National party Members, who receive the same salary as English MPs and have Members of the Scottish Parliament in near-coterminous constituencies to take the burden off them, vote against the boundary changes that will ameliorate the situation in which massive electorates in constituencies in England are represented by just one MP.
Michael Ellis
I had noticed that brass neck, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on making that point. At least 61 peers are registered as living in Scotland.
Mr Hanson
Will the Deputy Leader of the House answer one question? Does he support the principle of hereditary peers in the 21st century, or will he support the ten-minute rule Bill to abolish them that I introduced last year or Lord Grocott’s Bill to end them that is now in the other place? Will he confirm that he could now do so?
Michael Ellis
As I have said, as was set out in the Conservative party manifesto, the Government recognise the need to reduce the size of the House of Lords. However, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not considered a priority in the current Parliament, given the other pressing constitutional matters, not least, I should say, the further devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales. We consider there to be higher priorities.
The House of Lords has not stood still in the past few years. In the last Parliament, it took forward some important reforms, with Government support. Although there is more to do, that Chamber has constantly evolved. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allowed peers to retire formally and permanently for the first time. It also provided for the expulsion of peers for non-attendance. Previously, a peer had to apply for a leave of absence. The Act was promoted by Lord Steel.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I have been trying to get in for some time. He tried to make a virtue of the fact that so many peers work part time. Does he not share my concern that that leaves things open to conflicts of interest in a way that even this place does not have? Does he share my concern that so many party donors are in the House of Lords?
Michael Ellis
I do not accept that characterisation at all. There is a proper process for appointments to the House of Lords by committee and a proper vetting process. The reality is that, as I have been saying, the House of Lords is a constantly evolving Chamber. The 2014 Act provided for the expulsion of peers—for example, for non-attendance—and for their retiring, a process that has seen some results. Further reforms introduced in 2015 empowered peers to expel Members for serious misconduct and suspend them beyond the end of a Parliament.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I would like to go back to last year’s Conservative manifesto and the desire to reduce numbers. Did David Cameron not singlehandedly put more than 230 peers into the House of Lords? That is more than 25% of the House of Lords appointed by him alone.
Michael Ellis
Tony Blair created far more peers than David Cameron. Until such time as there can be comprehensive reform, we have a system in place that is still being operated.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister, who is indeed being generous. A moment ago he said that not all the 800 or so Lords turn up, but the fact is that they can, and often do on some of the most controversial legislation. People were flown in, for example, to vote on tax credits, and the bishops voted on equal marriage legislation, which many of us found pretty unacceptable given that the bishops are only from the Church of England. The fact is that they can turn up. They have a vote in our system on our laws. Surely that is the fundamental principle: they have more votes than we, the elected House, do.
Michael Ellis
We have a process whereby we accept that the size of the House of Lords needs to be looked at, but there are priorities, and that is not a priority in this Parliament. Attempts were made in the last Parliament. This Parliament has pressing business. Although the size of the House of Lords is recognised as large, reform needs to be dealt with in due course, and preferably by consensus.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he give way on that point?
Michael Ellis
I need to make some progress, if I may. Time is moving on, as Mr Speaker said.
The coalition Government also introduced some small-scale reform under the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015— the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to bishops—which fast-tracks female bishops into the House of Lords by prioritising them in filling vacancies for the next 10 years. The reality is that there have been reforms. The first female bishop was introduced about a year ago in October 2015.
I should point out that the House of Lords has cut its operating costs by 14% in real terms since 2010. Its membership has changed, too. More than 150 peers have left the Lords since 2010, with more than 50 retiring since that facility was introduced two years ago. Indeed, there are 400 fewer Members of the House of Lords now than in 1998. The House of Lords is not as large as it was but is substantially smaller than in 1998.
It is right that the House of Lords continues to look at how it can work more effectively. Where further possible steps can command consensus, Her Majesty’s Government would welcome working with peers to take reasonable measures forward in this Parliament. If that is possible in consensus with peers, we would welcome doing so.
At the same time, it is vital that we continue to reform parliamentary boundaries. The Conservative manifesto commitment was to
“address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value.”
It is crucial that votes are of more equal value. Without the implementation of the boundary reforms, MPs will continue to represent constituencies that were drawn up on data that will be up to 20 years old at the 2020 general election, disregarding significant changes in the population. The principle of equal-sized constituencies, endorsed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, is one that I would have thought Members on both sides of the House accepted. It is crucial to have votes of equal value across the United Kingdom.
Michael Ellis
I need to make some progress. There are a number of people who wish to speak and I have given way several times.
The reforms have already been delayed once by the Opposition parties and it is vital that they are not waylaid again by mixing them up with a discussion about reform of the House of Lords.
Mr MacNeil
The Minister says it is not a priority to deal with the House of Lords in this Parliament and that there are other issues. If he has other important issues—I can say this with authority, because my constituency is not affected—why is it so important to deal with the House of Commons? He wants a situation with fewer democratically elected parliamentarians, while he stuffs the other place. That does not ring true. We know full well that it is an attack on the Labour party, an attack on Scotland and an attack on Wales. That is the long and the short of it, and he might as well be honest about that.
Michael Ellis
There is a public demand for value for money and to reduce the cost of politics. In all areas of public life, savings have been made so that we live within our means. It is right that this House should find savings, too. By reducing the number of MPs, we will save up to £66 million over the course of a Parliament.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister is right to talk about the importance of democratic legitimacy. Does he accept that it is democratically illegitimate to have hereditary peers sitting and having any say in our democratic process? It gets in the way of the legitimacy of some of his other arguments when that very simple change could be put forward to help him carry through some of the arguments he is making about constituency equalisation.
Michael Ellis
As I have already said, the Government recognise the need to reduce the size of the House of Lords, but comprehensive reform is not considered a priority in this Parliament. I would have thought that the Scottish nationalists recognised the priority being given to other pressing constitutional matters, particularly the further devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales.
As I was saying, by reducing the number of MPs, we will save £66 million over the course of a Parliament. It is therefore right that we move forward with these proposals. The boundary proposals need not be tied with reforms of the House of Lords, not least as we do not believe that now is the right time to embark on comprehensive Lords reform. There are many different views on what form the House of Lords should take, and without any consensus there is no practical possibility, frankly, of taking such reform forward. There needs to be some practical realisation that, without consensus, it will not be possible.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes the point about reducing cost by reducing the number of MPs. Will he commit to reducing the size of the Government by the same proportion as the number of MPs he is trying to cut? If he does not do that, it will give the Government more control over Parliament, which to many of us is unacceptable. Of course, if he reduced the number of Ministers, he would save a bit more money as well.
Michael Ellis
The appointment of Ministers is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister and I am certainly not going to comment on that. Ministerial numbers must reflect what the Prime Minister of the day feels she or he needs for the Government to work effectively.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On the number of Ministers, the maximum is set by legislation. It is not purely in the gift of the Prime Minister.
Michael Ellis
I recognise that—the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, I think—but that relates to the maximum, not the minimum. However, the appointment of Ministers is a matter for the Prime Minister.
There are many different views on what form the House of Lords should take and we have heard some of them this afternoon. Without consensus, as I have said, there is no practical possibility of taking such reform forward, and this was clear from the attempted passage of the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012. It was withdrawn not for lack of commitment from the Government, but because there was no overall agreement about what that reform should look like. When there are so many pressing constitutional reforms, not least devolving more powers to Scotland and Wales and delivering all that is necessary for the UK’s exit from the European Union, it is on those subjects that we should focus our attention in this Parliament. It would not be right to distract from or derail important reforms elsewhere by making House of Lords reform a priority. That is why we do not support the motion.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not entirely clear whether the Deputy Leader of the House concluded his oration or whether he was giving way.
Michael Ellis
I had concluded, but out of generosity, perhaps you will accept it if I give way on this occasion.
Mr Speaker
Very well, but it is very unusual. I do not think the word exists to “unconclude” one’s speech, but if it possible to do so, the hon. Gentleman has done it. Let us hear the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The Conservative party manifesto said that the Conservatives would
“address issues such as the size of the House of Lords”.
Why does the Minister think that the electorate thought that was less important than some of the other things in the manifesto? How can he get into the heads of the electorate? This was front and centre of the manifesto.
Michael Ellis
The Government have decided that it is not a priority for this Parliament to address that issue. The fact of the matter is that attempts were made during the last Parliament, as I have said, and there is no consensus. There are high priorities, including exiting the EU and further devolution for Scotland and Wales. Those are the priorities. That is why we do not support the motion, as I said. That, Mr Speaker, is the conclusion.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the next speaker, let me explain that the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will begin at six minutes. Dependent on progress, it may have to be reviewed.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted to participate in today’s debate, particularly at a time when, owing to Conservative gerrymandering, the UK’s democratic structures look more fragile than ever. Under the previous Prime Minister, as numerous speakers have said, appointments to the unelected House of Lords were made at a faster rate than under any other Prime Minister since life peerages began. Incidentally, the outgoing Member for Witney will be replaced tomorrow—hopefully by the Labour candidate, Duncan Enright. Perhaps we have not seen the last of the former Prime Minister—perhaps we might see him in the House of Lords in future.
Astonishingly, between taking office in 2010 and leaving this year, the former Prime Minister added 261 peers at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of somewhere in the region of £34 million. Frighteningly, it is thought that up to 20% of all appointments to the House of Lords have been people who have given substantial donations to the Conservative party. Others appointed include the former Prime Minister’s cronies, his head of operations, the head of his No. 10 policy unit and the head of external relations.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same could be said of the Labour party and the unions?
Ian Lavery
If the hon. Gentleman looked at the statistics on trade unionists, he would find that appointments by the former Prime Minister were completely different.
The bloated Lords now has over 800 Members and leaves the UK noticeably as the only bicameral country in the world where the second Chamber is larger than the first. Indeed, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the only Chamber that is bigger is the national assembly of China. It is an absolute outrage. Let us be honest about it: we are a laughing stock in this regard. It is worth remembering, of course, that China’s population is 28 times the size of the United Kingdom’s.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I think that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House may have misremembered. It was not that there was no consensus; there was a Bill on which we all agreed, or which certainly had the support of the House, but it was the hon. Gentleman’s party that withdrew support for the programme motion. We could have had a reformed House of Lords, had it not been for the machinations of the Labour party.
Ian Lavery
I think there is more to the history of that than blaming the Labour party. I think it was the coalition Government that suffered a slight hiccup in their relationship at that point.
While what I have described was clearly bad enough, it came at the same time as the Government sought to reduce the number of elected Members of Parliament from 650 to 600. That was done under the guise of making politics cheaper, but it barely scraped the surface of the additional costs of the unelected Lords. Just where is the logic in reducing the size of the democratically elected Commons? If we want consensus, we can all agree to abolish the Boundary Commission review. We are being asked for consensus by the Minister, and that is fine, but if we want consensus in relation to certain issues, we should have consensus in relation to democracy. That is simple.
During the last Parliament, the attempt to rig democracy in favour of continuous Conservative control failed only because the Conservatives’ coalition partners, the threatened Liberal Democrats, rebelled—a point that I made to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). They did not rebel over the much trumpeted 2010 anti-austerity policies. They were not terribly interested in opposing in-year spending cuts, increased tuition fees, or even the fundamentally illiberal “gagging Bill”. The truth is that the Liberal Democrats spat out the proverbial dummy because of the Government’s failure to back their poor compromise on reform of the Lords, which they themselves sought to stuff with their own peers. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Absolutely. I was waiting for an intervention then, but, looking around the Chamber, I see that there is no one from the Liberal Democrats here to intervene.
The coalition agreement on Lords appointments would have meant an additional 186 peers, costing an estimated £24 million. All of them would have been Liberal Democrats or Conservatives. Interestingly, the Dissolution honours list contained more Liberal Democrats than their current parliamentary cohort. I hear people say that that is not hard to achieve, but it is nevertheless an important point.
Although the Liberal Democrat rebellion scuppered the 2013 review, the legislation was never repealed, and the unfettered Conservative Government have returned to the task. Their proposals to redraw constituency boundaries are grossly unfair, unjust, undemocratic and wholly unacceptable. They are based on an out-of-date version of the electoral register with nearly 2 million voters missing, a disproportionately high number of whom are transient and poorer voters: students, and families forced to move as a result of changes in the benefit system. The changes fail to take any account of the myriad bits of additional work that the vote to leave the European Union and a return of powers would bring.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Boundary Commission, and therefore the commissioners, are guilty of a gerrymander. May I invite him to reflect on that? We have independent commissioners who are looking at our parliamentary boundaries. To impugn their honour, their integrity and their independence belies the hon. Gentleman.
Ian Lavery
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but I did not in any way suggest that the commissioners were gerrymandering. My view is that the Conservative party—this Government—are attempting to gerrymander the boundary changes. They are the ones who want the reduction from 650 to 600. I do not believe that there is any other party in the House of Commons that wants that. That is my point, and I wonder how reducing the number of MPs from 29 to 25 in my native north-east or from 59 to 53 in the west midlands fits in with the Tory devolution agenda. I am unsure, but perhaps the Minister will answer that at some stage.
Michael Ellis
Does the hon. Gentleman have an objection to equal-sized constituencies, because that is what we are seeking to achieve with these boundary reforms: equal-sized constituencies across the country, which we do not have now?
Ian Lavery
I have absolutely no objection to equal-sized constituencies, but I do have an objection to gerrymandering and changing the boundaries to ensure there is a distinct advantage to one party rather than another. But perhaps the Minister will respond to the point about devolution.
The Conservatives have once again done what the Conservatives do best: look after themselves and their party despite the real needs of this country. While on the Opposition Benches there is broad agreement about equalising the size of the constituencies, we cannot support this Tory attempt at what we would class as establishing perpetual rule. Let me make it absolutely clear: the Labour party will emphatically oppose the proposals of the Boundary Commission.
On the question of the second Chamber, it is my party that has always sought to reform the Lords. We passionately believe in the role of the second Chamber in our great democracy: we believe that no Government of any colour should be able to implement legislation without the proper scrutiny that a bicameral legislature provides. But while this is true, I must add that my party firmly believes that the House of Lords should be a democratic Chamber, not one appointed to through the patronage of the Prime Minister. We will not support any curtailment of the powers of Cross-Bench Lords and other measures designed to weaken the ability of the House of Lords to properly scrutinise, and where needed oppose, Government policy.
Under this Government, the use of secondary legislation has soared and is now being used for controversial and far-reaching policy changes such as tax credit cuts that traditionally have been introduced through primary legislation. Last year we were left with the sickening sight of Lord Lloyd Webber being flown back to the UK to try to defeat attempts to stop the Tory Government punishing hard-working British families through the Tory tax credit cut. I think it is appropriate at this point to put on record our sincere thanks for the great efforts and deliberations of Labour Peers and others who ensured that the attack on tax credits was defeated. It is vital that the Lords are able to continue to use the powers they have to scrutinise the Government’s plans and prevent such disastrous Government policies from being introduced.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talked about fairness, but why does he think it fair that his constituency, which has an electorate of 62,000, should remain as it is, while my constituency has an electorate of 80,000?
Ian Lavery
I have already said I believe in equalisation, but not in the reduction in the number of parliamentary seats from 650 to 600. I firmly believe we should be looking at the equalisation of constituencies, but that is not the issue here: the issue is the unfairness of reducing the number of MPs while at the same time stuffing the other place ram-jam packed with people who are unelected and unaccountable. That is totally and utterly unjustified.
It is inevitable that during this Parliament the Lords will be required once again to properly scrutinise, and if necessary overturn, the actions of a Government increasingly dominated by right-wing populism, although in this we must be careful about the recommendations of the Strathclyde report, which was a rapid response by the Government to these actions and designed to render the second Chamber toothless against such authoritarian measures.
In the wake of the Brexit vote, the House of Lords must be allowed to get on with its vital role of scrutinising legislation. The process is likely to throw up an enormous number of statutory instruments, and without the Lords they would probably go through on the nod.
Labour has long called for reform. In the reduction of the Lords and in government, we have sought to find consensus. It is important to remember that it was a Labour Government who cleared out most of the hereditary peers, but we fully acknowledge that fundamental reform is essential.
Given the vote to leave the EU, the Government’s boundary review and the political estrangement felt by many voters, this is a timely debate. We live in a changed society in a modern age, where leaps in technology have resulted in an increase in people across the UK becoming more interested in political issues, but participatory democracy feels alien to many and, with a few noticeable exceptions, wanes every year. Many people feel that politics is unable to change their lives, their area or their country for the better. As parliamentarians and politicians, we face a huge challenge of how we widen democracy in this country and give people the power to make things better.
Some people may wonder why the SNP has chosen once again to focus on constitutional issues rather than its day job of governing Scotland, but I will leave that to its Members. It is very interesting that the party should take such an interest in matters relating to the House of Lords. In Scotland’s devolved Parliament, no such second Chamber exists. The forensic scrutiny of the Lords in the UK is said to be provided by the Scottish Parliament’s Committee structure, but sadly the political balance of those Committees allows the Scottish Government to proceed very much as they wish.
That said, I am happy to inform the House that the Labour party will vote in favour of the SNP motion, but this should be only the beginning. The Government have many questions to answer on the issue of democracy; perhaps the Minister will address them at some stage. Will the Government agree to abandon the proposal for boundary changes until a review of the bicameral system in its entirety has been conducted? [Interruption.] Somebody shouted “No” from a sedentary position. The Minister spoke just before me and pleaded for consensus on our democratic processes, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) was present at that point. We need to look at the system in its entirety.
Will the Minister give a guarantee that those Tory MPs who may lose their seats under the proposed boundary changes will not be stuffed into the House of Lords as a solution to the problems that the Conservatives themselves face as a result of those changes? When will a plan be put in place to deal with the unwieldy, unelected and unaccountable second Chamber, and to replace it with something more befitting the 21st century? How will we bring democracy back to the communities that feel abandoned by politics?
We have an opportunity to rebuild democracy in this country, making politics relevant to people’s lives, and to rebuild trust. We need to put giving people a real say in their communities and workplaces at the heart of our work as public servants. Labour sees transferring power from Westminster, Whitehall and, indeed, the boardroom to our communities as imperative to the future of our democracy. We want real devolution of power, not the phoney Tory con of regional mayors, designed simply to pass on the blame for swingeing cuts. Democracy needs to be revived in every nation and region of our country, and in every community, town and city. It must be transparent, it must be fair and it must be accountable. It must be a major improvement on the current Tory plans. We need progress, and we need it very quickly. We need an agreed workable timeframe. Democracy cannot be seen to be ignored; it needs to be embraced. I am pleased to say that the official Opposition will support the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I remind Members that we have a six-minute limit on speeches to start with.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate after three outstanding Front-Bench speeches from three individuals—the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis)—who had distinguished careers outside this place before they came here.
Many of us, I suspect, will be familiar with the political gambit that is the dead cat. Popularised by my friend and colleague Sir Lynton Crosby, the idea is that when one is in a position of deep political embarrassment one throws the equivalent of a dead cat on to the table. The purpose of so doing is to divert attention from what was just being discussed because, whatever the controversy that has been raging beforehand, people suddenly say, “Oh my God, there’s a dead cat on the table.” The conversation having changed as a result, embarrassment—such as my own at my execrable Australian accent just then—is avoided.
In this debate, the House of Lords, perhaps appropriately for an ermine-clad Chamber, is the dead cat. The SNP has chosen a discussion of the future of the House of Lords for this Opposition day debate because of a wish to divert attention from a number of other issues. The question I have to ask SNP Members is this: when they think about the issues that their voters bring to them in their surgeries or by email or correspondence, what are they? Overwhelmingly, they will be education, health, law and order and the economy. Why is the SNP not talking about those issues today? I will tell the House—[Interruption.] Order! The SNP is not talking about law and order because its centralisation of power in the hands of Police Scotland has been widely viewed as illiberal and is thought by local authorities in Scotland to have been a disaster.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Gove
No.
We are not hearing about the NHS because there is an NHS crisis in Scotland. The SNP lost a vote in the Scottish Parliament not long ago as a result of its mishandling of the NHS in Scotland. Recently, efforts to ensure adequate recruitment of general practitioners in Scotland failed. Why are we not hearing about education from the SNP? [Interruption.] Just a minute. We are not hearing about education from the SNP because recently, and humiliatingly—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I do hope it is a point of order, Mr Arkless.
Richard Arkless
I am curious about the right hon. Gentleman’s assertions, Mr Deputy Speaker. The wording of the motion on the Order Paper is clear and I ask you kindly to bring him into line to discuss it.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I will make a better suggestion. I will decide who is in order and when. I would not waste any more time on interventions, however, as we are struggling for time and I want to ensure that everyone gets equal time.
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are not hearing about education because the Scottish National party has had to execute a humiliating U-turn and its Education Minister, Mr Swinney, has had to adopt our policies on education by giving funding to schools—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We allow a little bit of movement, but the right hon. Gentleman is concentrating purely on education when we are discussing the size of the House of Lords, and even I struggle to see the connection. I would have expected a connection by now, and as there is not one coming I am sure, Mr Gove, that you will want to get back to the subject of the size of the House of Lords and what we are debating.
Michael Gove
Indeed. One of the challenges, as has been pointed out by those on both Front Benches, is that when SNP Members put forward proposals for the House of Lords, they offer no alternative method of scrutiny. They simply propose unicameralism. Not only that, but they do not observe the basic pragmatic principle of the British constitution that we should preserve what works. Like the monarchy, the House of Lords is an institution that works, despite the fact that it might not succumb to every rational imprint. I speak as a Minister who has been held accountable and who has been cross-questioned—[Interruption.] An ex-Minister, I should say. I have been cross-questioned by Select Committees in the House of Lords with a greater degree of pertinacity and effectiveness than I have found in any other cross-examination I have ever faced.
The logic behind the SNP’s position is that if it objects to any constitutional model that does not fit its own preconceptions, it should object to the monarchy. The real thrust behind the SNP’s position is that it opposes the institutions that bind the United Kingdom together and are a focus for loyalty in this country, such as the monarchy, because of its single-minded pursuit of separation and independence come what may. If SNP Members really object to unelected figures meeting in a fashion that results in democratically elected Members of Parliament finding the will of the people frustrated, why are they so keen to stay in the European Union? If they object to unelected, unaccountable and out-of-touch figures wielding power, why do they not object to the existence of the European Council in its current form? Again, the answer is that they are only interested in separation.
One final point. We scarcely heard anything from the SNP on the vital importance of ensuring that all parliamentary constituencies should be of equal size. Having parliamentary constituencies of equal size was a demand of the Chartists in 1838, yet we still do not have them. I may be a young man in a hurry, and I may be an impetuous radical determined to bring about change at a pace faster than many would account, but surely, after nearly 200 years, the Chartists’ demands should at last be honoured. All votes should be equal, all constituencies should be equal and democracy should be honoured.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). It is just a shame that he has done a disservice to the House and to himself by refusing to discuss any part of the motion on the Order Paper. Let us consider the predicament into which the political class in this country has now gotten itself. Since the introduction of adult universal suffrage, there has been concern and sometimes embarrassment about the anachronistic nature of our bicameral legislature, in which one completely unelected House has the powers that it has. Over the decades, there have been attempts—many of them successful—to limit those powers and to assert the primacy of this House.
Now, however, we are embarking on a journey on which two things will happen simultaneously. The number of Members in the unelected House will increase to unprecedented levels and without any limit. At the same time, the number of people elected to make laws in this country will be reduced. In my view, that is a serial affront to the democratic values on which this country is based. That could be viewed as simply a matter of constitutional theory, but it is much more important than that. It speaks to the character of our democracy and our country. It lowers the esteem in which we are held abroad and, most importantly, it lowers the esteem in which this legislature is held by its own citizens. I believe that this is one of the contributory factors to the anti-politics, the disillusion and the alienation that have emerged in this country, and unless we do something to counteract this, we are all going to be in a lot of trouble.
As it happens, we do believe in an elected second Chamber, but the case for a bicameral Parliament has to be argued; it cannot just be assumed to be the default position. In fact, 16 of the 28 member states of the European Union have a unicameral Parliament. That is the norm throughout Europe, so we cannot assume that bicameralism is automatically the default.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong and telling point about the size of the upper House when compared with the number of elected Members. However, when the official Opposition in this place are in disarray and clearly not up to the job of official scrutiny, the bicameral system means that efficient scrutiny can be done in another place. Does he agree that we should cherish that safeguard?
Tommy Sheppard
I want to come on to that. A frequent argument for a revising or upper Chamber is the inadequacy of the first Chamber, and I want to look at some of the imperfections of this House. To start with, we may be elected and accountable, but we can in no way be described as democratically representative of the population who elected us. A system that results in a majority Government with 37% of the vote can never be described as such. Our system is also much more centralised than that of any comparable country. We in Scotland have been on a home rule journey, which we are anxious to speed up, but I actually feel for colleagues in England, who represent the bulk of the United Kingdom, about the absence of any meaningful regional or democratic local government beneath this level. If we actually looked at the matrix of governance underneath this place, we could relieve many of the pressures on this House.
Our procedures for policy review and scrutiny are not fit for purpose. This adversarial system—two sword lengths apart—often militates against a consensual or at least a majoritarian approach to developing public policy, which is why mistakes in this place often have to be rectified somewhere else. However, that is not an argument for the House of Lords; it is an argument for improving the procedures of the House of Commons. The truth is that we need to consider our legislature as a whole and bring in major reforms to both Houses of Parliament. If we do not do that, our system of governance will fall further into disrepute.
Tommy Sheppard
I cannot give way because of the time. To say that the House of Lords is justified because it compensates for the inadequacy of the House of Commons is completely wrong. In fact, it exacerbates many of those inadequacies.
Turning to the imperfections of the House of Lords, that it is unelected is taken as given, but it is also profoundly unrepresentative for an appointed chamber. It is old, male and almost half of its Members are domiciled in the south-east of England. In no way does that even attempt to recognise our country. It is also very big—my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) noted that it is second only to the legislature of the People’s Republic of China—and very costly, with each peer costing an average of £120,000 a year and its operation costing almost £100 million. If the Government are serious about reducing the cost of government, I suggest that they look first at what is happening along the corridor.
It is time to begin the process of change. We should be looking at having an elected second Chamber. Indeed, that pledge was in the Conservative manifesto, so it has ceased to be an argument of principle; it is one of priorities and the timing being right. The time is absolutely right to begin the process of considering change and I recommend that this House do so.
Tommy Sheppard
I think I will get into trouble if I give way.
I want to consider the boundary changes, because the two things must be looked at together—they are two sides of the same coin. No case can be made for reducing the number of elected Members of Parliament at a time when this Parliament’s responsibility will increase as a result of leaving the European Union and the repatriation, in whatever form, of a vast amount of powers. At the very least, the pause button should be pressed until the Brexit plan is established and we see how this country manages to survive outside the European Union.
I commend the motion to the House. I am actually pleased with some of the comments from the Government Benches about being prepared to consider it. I point out that the motion does not call for the abolition of the House of Lords or any of the structures of the House of Commons or for electoral reform. It is a motion that says, “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.” It is one that says, “Press the pause button.” Let us look at the plans for the future. Let us pause the reduction in the number of seats in the Commons. Let us pause the escalation in the size of the House of Lords. Let us see whether we can come back with proposals for reform that will command support from across the House and endear us much more to the people who put us here.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and I should probably start with a declaration of interest, as my wife is a recently appointed life baroness in the Lords. I should add, for the benefit of Members opposite, that I believe she is now reconciled to the fact that before she was appointed I had voted repeatedly to abolish people like her, so it would be rather self-serving if I changed my mind now, as I hope everyone would agree. I am happy to inform the House that we are still talking even so. Although I instinctively support Lords reform, I oppose this motion. Why? It is because it uses Lords reform not as a dead cat, but as an excuse to delay boundary reform, a much-needed and overdue improvement to the plumbing of our democracy.
As we have heard, our current constituency boundaries are based on voter data that are already 15 years old or more. If we do not reform the boundaries now, they will be 20 years out of date by the next general election. As the old boundaries produced constituencies that varied tremendously in size, votes in one part of the country carried far more, or far less, weight than votes in another. It is a fundamental principle of our democracy that everybody’s vote must count the same as that of their neighbour. It does not matter whether you are rich or poor, what colour your skin may be or what god you worship, my vote carries no more weight than yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, and yours is worth no more than Nicola Sturgeon’s. Without that, our elections will not be fair.
Kirsty Blackman
Is the hon. Gentleman in fact making an impassioned plea for proportional representation?
John Penrose
Not at all. I am making an impassioned plea for equal-sized constituencies and for votes to weigh the same. I can think of nothing more dangerous for our democracy, and nothing more corrosive of trust in politicians and the political system, than a sense that some favoured voters get a better deal than others in other parts of the country.
John Penrose
I really must continue. So votes must carry equal weight, but without boundary reform they will not. Anyone proposing delays to the reform will inevitably face the challenge, unfair and unworthy though I am sure it would be in the case of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), that delaying reform has a party political advantage, too. That is because many smaller constituencies have historically been in areas with lots of Labour and, in some cases, Scottish National party, MPs, so it has historically required fewer voters to elect Labour MPs than Conservative ones.
In other words, some people—not all, but some—want to delay boundary reform because they want to hang on to a system that gave them unfair, unearned, unjustified and undemocratic privilege. They will not admit it in public, of course, but that is what is behind it. So I say to those people, particularly those in the political parties with proud and distinguished traditions of progressive politics and of standing up for what is right against the forces of reaction who oppose reform, please think very carefully before voting to delay boundary reform, for you will lay yourself open to the charge of putting party advantage ahead of democratic principle and fair elections. If I, as a Tory, can vote for fair elections, so can you.
Linking reform of the undemocratic Lords to separate, much-needed reforms for fairer elections to the democratic Commons is just wrong. It is a recipe for endless delay, and will only fuel the cynics who believe the whole system is fixed against them. The referendum vote on 23 June was, in part, a howl of frustration—a cry of rage against an unfair system where some favoured electors’ votes count more than those of others. The sight of MPs voting to hang on to a cosy, unfair system will only make things worse. It will corrode trust in our democracy even further, so I urge, even at this late stage, the SNP to withdraw this motion as fast as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just before I bring others in, may I say that we are going to have to drop to a five-minute limit, and I want to try to get everybody in on the same level?
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On 14 January, I rose to introduce an Adjournment debate on this very issue, and I could easily reiterate the points that I articulated to the House then. Well, for the avoidance of doubt, I will and I will take great pleasure in it. All that has changed since we last discussed reform of the unelected, unaccountable House of Lords is that there are more of them—more party donors, more party hacks, less openness, less transparency, and more ermine.
At the same time, the reviews of the boundary commissions—yes, there is more than one—have sought to reduce further the number of elected Members to this House of Commons. While this House is reduced in number and relevance, the House of Lords, at its present velocity of expansion, will soon exceed the National People’s Congress of China. It has already exceeded the size of the European Parliament, which is directly elected by more than 400 million European citizens. It seems that we are taking back control and handing it on a plate to the barons and baronesses of the unelected upper Chamber. At least on the SNP Benches, we have spoken and will continue to speak with one voice. In our manifesto at the general election, we placed our proposal before the entire community of Scotland. “Abolish it”, we said and we won.
If we as Members are to work effectively and with electoral legitimacy—
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Forget it. The right hon. Gentleman can sit right down.
If we are to work with electoral legitimacy, Britain’s upper Chamber should resemble less the National People’s Congress of China and more the revising and advisory chamber of the people’s Parliament of a 21st century liberal democracy.
Let us turn now to the hope of many Members of this House—a hope that is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who should wear with pride his title of leading abolitionist—that any future reform of the upper Chamber should not only consider its size, but limit it and remove with haste its ability as an unelected and unaccountable Chamber to generate legislation [Interruption.] Members should listen; they might learn something. Once again, let me state that this is an affront to my constituents and an aberration at the heart of the British state.
I have previously likened the antics of the previous Government to a “Carry On” movie. Their antics had the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) cast as the arch-villain, Citizen Camembert, and the former Prime Minister as the good cop and leading man, the Black Fingernail. I do hope that the new cast of actors are less like the Duke de Pommefrites. That said, however, we may end up with Citizen Bidet, and we all know where that ends—down the cludgie.
I continue to believe, in this parliamentary term at least, that this aspiration will probably be a lost cause given that the hierarchy of the Conservative party—and even those punted to the Back Benches—has a long-term love affair with the upper Chamber. Over the previous Parliament, 200 unelected and unaccountable peers were added to the Lords. Even the new First Lord of the Treasury has appointed 16 new Members, 15 of whom are Tories.
Of the peerage, let me turn again, as I did on 14 January, to a certain cadre. I will be louder this time, because they did not seem to hear me the first time. I am talking about the archbishops and bishops of the established Church of England. Many have likened their position to that of the theocrats of the Islamic Republic of Iran. My direct challenge is this—
Martin Docherty-Hughes
No, sit down, son. I have told you once and I will not tell you again.
Those bishops and archbishops have no place in the governance of the nation of Scotland. They have no right to vote, if such a thing should occur, on the civic or legislative life of our nation. Let me make myself clear. It would be easy for me to vent frustration, but I shall make one call tonight, which is to abolish it. Listen to what the nation of Scotland said at the last general election: get rid of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think we will go from one extreme to the other. I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who expressed himself with such vim and vigour.
The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is an important motion and a proper subject for us to debate. It is something that we have been debating for hundreds of years. The earliest debate I can find for deciding to limit the House of Lords is in 1719, and we will all remember that the Parliament Act 1911 states that it is a temporary measure until a more democratic means of choosing an upper House can be found.
These problems are not new, and there are serious problems with the House of Lords. I do not think anyone would try to pretend otherwise. It is not by any means perfect and its imperfection is partly in its size, partly in its unaccountability and partly, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire so rightly said, in its Liberal Democrats. I do not say that as a cheap shot against the Liberal Democrats, though those are perfectly fun. I say it because the very large number of Lib Dems who are there, who are abusing their position in the Lords to thwart the will of the elected Government, have made a real problem for the Government and for the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords. There are unquestionably problems, but what is the solution?
What we have considered in previous Parliaments is a democratically elected upper House. That sounds very sensible in theory, but there is a fundamental problem for us in this House that if we have a democratically elected House of Lords, its powers will be equal to ours. Even if the letter of the law allows us to overrule the Lords, that will soon cease to be a political reality. A democratically elected House of Lords challenges the Commons, and if a democratically elected House of Lords is on a different electoral system, it might even claim a higher validity than we have and therefore the right to overrule us. Then we would probably have a gridlocked system like that in the United States, with the two Houses being unable to co-operate and an inability to govern and to get legislation through.
Mr Jackson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats were complicit in the failure of their once-in-a-generation opportunity for House of Lords reform by bringing forward a ludicrous proposal for a 15-year non-renewable mandate, which would have challenged the authority and mandate of this House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That was part of the problem. The other problem was that they were quite unwilling to set out what they would do between the conventions that both Houses have. If those conventions are legislated for, who is to determine whether the conventions are followed? Would that be the courts, and then would the courts interfere in Parliament? Or would the conventions be decided by consensus between the two Houses? In that case we would be back to the gridlock that I was warning about.
That is why the problem has not been solved. There is not a good democratic solution unless we are willing to downgrade the House of Commons, which I personally would be very much against doing. With our constituency-based relationship we have a wonderful system of democracy through this House. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a very powerful speech, but I disagree with him in thinking that the reform to constituencies is gerrymandering. It really is not. It is getting the numbers to be equal, which is a proper thing to do.
It would be wrong to fight the next general election on the electoral roll from 2000. That needs to be updated, and although the later the date the better—so I am not unsympathetic to the call to move it on two years later— that is not practical. It cannot be done on the absolutely last electoral roll, but by doing it every five years, we ensure that there is continuity in updating and a regular fairness in the size of the constituencies. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point and think it is important, through that constituency link, to defend the primacy of this House, which is the democratic House.
That is why I am less worried than the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about the failures of the House of Lords. Ultimately we are in charge. We can use the 1911 Parliament Act. We may decide to use that to do something on statutory instruments if the House of Lords challenges the Government on their democratically mandated implementation of policy. The democratic right overrides the undemocratic element. That gives me certainty and security that the nation is not becoming the People’s Republic of China, Lesotho or whatever other random examples have been brought up, because they do not have that democratic underpinning. Therefore, the size of the House of Lords is just a problem that we will have to live with.
In 1719, the main reason for opposing a limit on the numbers in the House of Lords was that a limit would make the Members who were already there more powerful because their power could not be diluted by adding more peers. That remains true today, because the one great authority this Chamber still retains over the House of Lords, via the Prime Minister, is not so much the 1911 Act, but the threat of creating many more peers, which was, of course, threatened in 1832 and in 1911—on both occasions to ensure the democratic will could prevail. We must maintain the ability to do that, even while recognising that the House of Lords is too big and has problems. However, this needs to be an evolutionary reform, which I would happily go into, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on another occasion.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who always makes very substantial contributions when he speaks in the House during our deliberations. I rise in support of the motion from my SNP colleagues, and it is a pleasure to follow the lead of my good friend the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who gave us his usual majestic performance while opening the debate.
Since being elected, I have been immensely impressed with the robotic discipline of some Government Back Benchers when it comes to political messaging. The most infamous catchphrase during my first term here was “the long-term economic plan”. We have not heard much about that since the EU referendum, for obvious reasons. Another famous battle cry in my time here has been “cutting the cost of politics”. Today’s welcome debate on House of Lords reform gives us the opportunity to deconstruct that myth once and for all, because it is impossible to divorce culling the number of MPs from the deliberate bloating of the upper House by this Government.
Over a quarter of Welsh MPs are set to be removed under the boundary review—proportionally more than in any other constituent nation of the UK or region of England. Wales faces a double whammy: a poorer constitutional settlement in terms of powers, when compared with our friends in Scotland and Northern Ireland, yet the largest cut in representation in this place. I have no problem with equalising the size of constituencies for this House, but for that to happen and to have my support, Wales must have the same constitutional settlement as the other devolved Administrations. However, the Wales Bill, which has just made its way from this place to the other House, is a terrible Bill if we look at the powers offered to other parts of the UK.
At almost 800 Members, the House of Lords is now the second-largest Chamber on earth—beaten to the top spot only by China’s National People’s Congress, which I am led to believe has nearly 3,000 members. China, of course, has a population 28 times the size of the United Kingdom’s. Between this House and the other place, Westminster has over 1,400 politicians, and there is nothing stopping that number climbing even higher; there is no limit on the number of peers the two big parties can send to the other place, whether that involves failed career politicians or just favours to old friends. The cost of running the Lords, as we have heard, is around £100 million per annum, according to the Electoral Reform Society. Each peer costs taxpayers in our respective nations £120,000. Culling the upper House therefore seems the most obvious way of cutting the cost of politics.
It is also important to remember that Members of the upper Chamber can become Ministers: they can not only amend our laws, but make them, and that point has been missing so far from the debate.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many defects in our constitution at the moment? One of the principal ones is the small number of Members of the Welsh Assembly. Their work has trebled, and they are under great strain—some of them are on three or four Committees. If we are to have the reforms that we need, it would be far better not to do things piecemeal and not to reduce the number of MPs only, but to have a convention, so that we can get a balance and reduce membership in other places, and that can be done only by an overall, comprehensive reform of the constitution.
Jonathan Edwards
I am very grateful for that intervention. I have often suspected that the hon. Gentleman—my honourable comrade—has mind-reading abilities, because that was exactly my next point.
The National Assembly for Wales, which is responsible for major public services in Wales—the health service, education, economic development and many other issues—has just 60 elected representatives. Discounting Welsh Ministers, that leaves only 42 Back Benchers to scrutinise a Government making vital decisions in my country. If the Wales Bill makes its way through the House of Lords and gets a legislative consent motion in the Assembly, although that might be in question, it would also have, for the first time, responsibility for fiscal powers in Wales. That is a clear case for increasing the numbers in the National Assembly.
Before the latest cramming of the Lords when the former Prime Minister handed out peerages to his friends, 27% of peers listed representative politics as their main profession prior to entering the Lords. Most of them had been MPs; it must be the only legislature in the world where losing elections helps people gain seats. Many colleagues have mentioned the Liberal Democrats. I am not going to attack the Lib Dems, but I remember that the Lib Dems filled two of the bottom Government Benches during the last Parliament, and when I recently went to see a debate in the House of Lords, they were all sitting there in the right-hand corner, much to my surprise. A further 7% of peers had been political staff, and twice as many had worked as staff in the royal household than as manual or skilled labour. It is hardly a Chamber that is representative of our various communities across the United Kingdom.
For as long as decisions affecting Wales are to be made in the other place, Plaid Cymru will continue to press for equal representation for us. However, we believe that there is no role for patronage and an appointment system in a modern democracy. Following the Brexit vote, the UK faces a stark choice between two futures: do we return to a very centralised system based here in Westminster or move towards a more voluntary Union, as advocated by more sensible voices such as Lord Sainsbury in the other place? In my view, this place should turn into a Parliament for England, and the House of Lords should be reformed to become a confederal Parliament.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I am going to do something very brave and propose a solution to the problem down the corridor. I do not want to get rid of any of the lords, so I will not vote for this motion. Without wanting to be controversial, I have a bloodless solution. If we retired lords at 75 years of age, we would remove approximately 250 of them straight away. Let us not forget that the lords are there not to represent but to scrutinise. We do not want to get rid of every one of them, because there is expertise down there that can outweigh expertise in this Chamber—especially on the SNP Benches.
The average age in the Lords is 70, believe it or not, while the average age of those who actually contribute in the other place is 65. After that age, attendance drops off dramatically. We have to look at this in the round. If we reduced the Lords by 250 Members—those aged over 75—we would bring it down to approximately the size of the Commons. Those lords would then stay on to advise. They would not get paid or claim expenses, but go on to a higher Chamber called the Lords council, and advise their own Committees. They could then feed into the legislative process without any cost to the taxpayer.
Outside this Chamber, nobody is talking about the Lords—it is only us in here. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater; we should look at a grown-up way of getting the numbers down. Once we have done that, over a period of 15 years, natural attrition will take its toll. The 250 who have been put into the higher status could still call themselves lords, still have the gravitas and the gratification they want, and still contribute. They will go, and we can have an apportioned system, with so many Conservatives, so many from Labour and—dare I say it?—so many from the SNP. We can break it into segments. They will be able to scrutinise sensibly in a cross-party manner. I hope to have brought some kind of sense to this subject.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I want to lay my cards on the table straight away and say that I support the motion and I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I have been here for nearly 25 years, and in that time I have voted on every available occasion to abolish the House of Lords. If I have not been able to abolish the House of Lords—self-evidently, I have not—I have voted for change in the House of Lords.
I will propose some changes that the Government could deliver, should they so wish, to improve democracy without achieving my ultimate objective of massive reorganisation of the formulation of the House of Lords. It is not tenable in the 21st century to have an unelected House deciding on policy. It is not tenable to have hereditary peers deciding on policy. It is not tenable to have hereditary peers who are elected by other hereditary peers, with very small mandates—sometimes as few as three votes—deciding policies that affect the lives of my constituents. At a time when the Government are seeking to reduce the membership of this House from 650 to 600 and to remove completely Euro Members of Parliament, whose powers and responsibilities will be transferred back to this House, it is not tenable for us to allow the House of Lords to continue unchanged.
The recently appointed Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, is a former Conservative MP whom I remember being a member of the Cabinets of Mrs Thatcher and John Major when I first came here. He has said that there is no way the Lords can defend its current size of 820 peers and that
“we’ve been faffing around on this for some time now. And my fear would be that unless we take the initiative here someone else will”.
Let me suggest some simple initiatives. I will set the bar very low, because the Government’s position appears to be that they cannot make massive change, so they will make no change. A proposal to bring some things back into kilter is something that we in this House should support, and I suggest these three simple changes. First, let us remove from the House of Lords the 92 hereditary peers, 91 of whom, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), happen to be men and only one of whom is a woman. Those 92 hereditary peers are elected by as few as three votes.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, those hereditary peers are elected. The motion states that the Government should
“put in place plans to significantly reduce the number of unelected Lords”.
Is he proposing that the number of hereditary peers should stay the same, if he supports the motion?
Mr Hanson
If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am saying, he will hear that I have three small points to make—three very low bars. The first low bar is the removal of the hereditary peers. The second low bar is not to fill any more vacancies with unelected peers until the House of Lords gets down to a reasonable size, below that of the House of Commons.
On hereditary peers, let me just say that one of those recently elected is the Lord Fairfax of Cameron, whose great-great-great-great-great-great-something grandfather got his peerage because he was the first Englishman to travel to Scotland to swear allegiance to the new King James I. I happen to think that in the 21st century, we should pick our legislators on more than the fact that one of their ancestors knew how to get to Scotland quite quickly. That is no way to run a modern House of Lords.
Lord Thurso, the last Member to be elected as an hereditary peer, was an hereditary peer but he renounced his peerage, came to this place and sat on the Liberal Democrat Benches until he lost his seat, when he suddenly rediscovered his blue blood. That is no way to run a modern democracy. In April this year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to abolish hereditary peers. A Bill in another place in the name of my noble Friend Lord Grocott is designed to do something very similar to what the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) has suggested: not to fill the position of hereditary peers who retire or die. Those are both simple steps that could be taken now to remove the hereditary peers. Those things would be part of a wider package in due course, but the Government could certainly do them now. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member of this House would object to a small Bill to meet those objectives.
My second suggestion is not to fill vacancies until the size of the House of Lords gets down to that of the House of Commons. What is wrong with that? I want massive change—I have voted to abolish the Lords—but in the absence of consensus, let us look at how we can reduce the number of Members over time. That is perfectly reasonable.
The third suggestion may be revolutionary, but it is an attempt to find a compromise. I agree with the Government that Members of Parliament should represent equal numbers of constituents. Let us do that, but let us keep 650 MPs and have a boundary review on that basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said. In my part of the world, Wales, we would lose seats under such a review—we have 55,000 to 60,000 electors in each constituency—but we would have the same number of constituents and reasonable representation. But, no, this Government are seeking to reduce the representation from 650 to 600 Members, while in previous 18 months the former Prime Minister appointed 132 peers to the House of Lords.
I am sorry, but I happen to think we need radical surgery and radical change. I have three simple suggestions to get the ball rolling: remove the hereditaries, freeze appointments and consider keeping 650 Members of Parliament with equal numbers of voters, including—dare I say it?—in the Western Isles and the Isle of Wight, which are slightly different. Let us look at those things and make sure we make some radical changes on the road to democratising this Parliament and giving a lead to the rest of the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are four Members left to speak. With about 10 minutes available for Back Benchers, may I suggest they have about three minutes each?
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this very interesting debate. It is disappointing that SNP Members set their face against what could have been quite a consensual motion. I cannot support it because it conflates boundary changes with House of Lords reform, but we could have developed a consensus in the debate.
The House of Lords is of course an anachronism in a modern liberal democracy. We would not chose to invent it from scratch, were we able to do so, but we must nevertheless concede that its Members have the skills, knowledge and experience that we need. Because they have more time—they do not have the guillotine—and are not whipped so hard as we are, they can in some ways do the work of scrutiny, overview and improvement better than we can in this House.
We must also concede that the royal prerogative of absolute medieval monarchy has been transferred over the centuries from the king or queen through the House of Lords to the Executive of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, so there has been an accretion of powers. Under such an incremental approach, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), powers have been given away so that the upper House cannot vote against the Finance Bill —following the people’s Budget of 1909, and the Parliament Act 1911—and its powers have been otherwise circumscribed.
The flaw in that argument is that we had an opportunity for a once-in-a-generation change. As I mentioned earlier, because of the ludicrous proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrats—the 15-year, non-renewable terms would have meant that authority was contested between the mandates of the two Houses—that opportunity was wasted, as most Government Members would never have supported them. The issue about the authority of the two Houses is still a problem. I do not buy the argument that unicameral Parliaments are therefore better. The reason why so many EU countries have them is that so much legislation, policy making and governance is done by the European Union rather than in their own countries, but that will end very soon—because Brexit does mean Brexit.
I am an agnostic on the House of Lords—I have not made up my mind one way or the other—but my concern is that it is beginning to infringe some basic constitutional proprieties, such as the Salisbury convention. Its Members have taken it upon themselves to cut across the views of the elected Government as set out in their manifesto, which is absolutely wrong and unacceptable. Of course, we have moved on in other ways. We no longer recruit the Executive from the House of Lords but mainly from the House of Commons.
I put to the House this prospectus. It is not necessarily for the Government to bring forward legislation to reform the House of Lords. It is for the Lords themselves to do that—mention has been made of Lord Fowler’s views. I believe that the Lords are potentially in the last chance saloon, certainly with regard to their authority and the belief, faith and trust of the greater public in the system of which the Lords are a part. The challenge is for the Lords to reform themselves as they have done in the past. If they do not, I fear that another Government—although perhaps not one of my own political persuasion or political colour—will take drastic, draconian action. That will be damaging to the constitutional firmament and settlement of this country, in which to a certain extent the Lords have played an important role over many hundreds of years.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
My disgust at the undemocratic, unaccountable, unrepresentative House of Lords has been aired in this place on a number of occasions. Let us be clear that there is absolutely no case in any kind of modern democracy for the number of unelected peers to so greatly exceed the number of democratically elected Members in this place. It is quite simply astounding that plans to slash the number of democratically elected MPs are proceeding, further widening the gross disparity—
Margaret Ferrier
No, I am not giving way.
Boundary proposals have been issued. Tomorrow, Scottish voters will wake up to the news of a complete reshuffle of Westminster constituencies north of the border and firm proposals to remove six of their MPs. People will rightly be outraged.
It is vital that the Government understand that outrage and acknowledge that frustration. The reason that so many formerly disfranchised voters registered en masse and voted yes in the Scottish independence referendum was that they were fed up with the unrepresentative nature of the democratic process. They felt that Westminster did not speak to them or for them. We stand for doing things the way they ought to be done—for having a vibrant, representative democracy that reflects our diverse society. Those of us in the SNP will never take seats in an appointed Chamber.
Around a quarter of Lords appointments since 1997 have been former MPs who lost elections or resigned. It is no wonder that so many people in the UK feel disillusioned and disfranchised when unsuccessful ex-MPs get returned to our democracy through the back door. Although rejected at the ballot box, the appointed peers are able to collect £300 tax-free per day just for turning up. Between February 2014 and January 2015, £21 million was spent on Lords’ allowances and expenses. That will continue to rise as the already bloated House of Lords continues to see its ranks swell. We are told that the purpose of reducing the number of MPs is to cut the cost of democracy, so why is the cost of the Lords allowed to spiral ever upwards?
I would be doing a disservice to myself and my party if I did not acknowledge that some peers are incredibly hard working and conscientious. Some contribute a great deal to society, and I have had the pleasure of working with them in a constructive manner on all-party groups.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the fundamental difficulty is that peers appear to be selected for who they know rather than elected for what they know?
Margaret Ferrier
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That is the problem, and that is why there are so many of them.
The efforts of the Members of the House of Lords whom I was talking about do not go unnoticed, and so they should surely have nothing to fear from standing for election to a democratic second Chamber. There have even been occasions when the House of Lords has played an important role in blocking or amending legislation. Imagine how much more important a function our second Chamber could play in shaping legislation if it were fully elected and fully representative. More than half of peers are over 70. I know we are facing an ageing population but to even suggest that that is representative of wider society is absurd. Twice as many peers used to work for the royal family as have worked in skilled or manual labour. That simply is not right and cannot deliver the real-life experience needed in an effective second Chamber.
It simply is not right that the boundary plans proceed. We need plans to vastly reduce the number of peers and a full review of reform of the House of Lords. In the meantime, the Government must discard their plans to reduce the number of democratically elected Members of Parliament.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I apologise to the two speakers who cannot get in, but I have to call the Front Benchers. I am sorry about that, but the interventions have killed us.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This has been a really interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have heard a number of people propose changes to the House of Lords and ways in which we can go forward. What we have not heard is anybody saying that they think the House of Lords is wonderful and that we should keep it as it is. I think there is a general feeling across the House and across the country that, in the absence of abolishing the House of Lords, we need to reform the House of Lords.
I particularly enjoyed the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) was typically thoughtful in his contribution on this matter—I have previously enjoyed his contributions—and the speech from the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was, erm, interesting.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful that a fellow Gordonian has given way. Can the hon. Lady clear up for me an area of doubt and uncertainty? The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said that the SNP spoke with one voice on the issue of House of Lords reform. He said that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was an abolitionist and that that was SNP policy. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said he did not want to abolish the House of Lords, but merely wanted to reform it. What is SNP policy? If it is abolition, is the hon. Member for Edinburgh East out of line?
Kirsty Blackman
The manifesto we stood on said that the SNP would abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a fully elected second chamber. The motion we are putting forward today gives the Government a slightly more gentle way forward. It does not suggest full abolition at this stage. It suggests making positive changes.
I want to talk about a few things that were mentioned during the debate today.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
One of the rotten things about the House of Lords and the system of patronage is the fact that Ministers who are unaccountable to the electorate can be appointed by the Prime Minister. One recent example is Baroness Ros Altmann, who campaigned on behalf of the WASPI women. She then became a pensions Minister and suddenly had selective amnesia. Is that not just typical of the system that exists?
Kirsty Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to the make-up and appointments system of the Lords.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire pretty much had those of us on the SNP Benches weeping in hysterics at some of the things he pointed out. He was just highlighting the ridiculous nature of the House of Lords. It is absolutely ridiculous that in 2016 deference and fawning are required. We have people dressed in ermine robes and we are expected to genuflect to them. It is absolutely ridiculous that we live in a society where that is still okay.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that everybody is equal in this country when we vote. Everybody is not equal in this place. Those people in the other Chamber are somehow above the rest of us and that is not right. They have not been democratically elected to those positions and they should not have preferential treatment as a result of the appointments system.
The appointments system is—well, it is frankly ridiculous. We have a Prime Minister who was not elected to be Prime Minister. She was elected to Parliament—absolutely —but she was not elected to be Prime Minister of this country. Now, because of the appointments system to the House of Lords, she has the power to choose the people who will legislate. She has the power to choose the people who will sit in that other Chamber and make laws for this country. It is ridiculous that somebody can have this power without being elected to that position.
As has been stated by a number of my colleagues and Members across the House, appointments to the House of Lords are not always made on the basis of the people who best know what they are talking about. One Member mentioned that people may be experts in their field when they are elected, but their expertise very quickly disappears. I suggest that somebody who was a teacher 20 years ago is no longer the best person to be an expert on the education system, unless they have been particularly good at keeping up with changes. We have a whole House full of former experts—of ex-experts—and it is very difficult for us because we cannot get rid of them.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does she agree that there are plenty of other ways in which these experts can give their opinion, without being appointed for life?
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. I have been a member of a Select Committee in this House, so I am well aware that we are able to bring people who are genuine and current experts before such Committees to give evidence. We also have a great system whereby people can submit evidence in respect of legislation.
Let me make a couple more points on the make-up of the House of Lords. As of last year, there were only two Members of the House of Lords who were under 40, which is totally unreflective of society. On the cost, the Minister mentioned that there is an average attendance of about 500 each day. At £300 a day, that is £150,000 a day just on the allowances. Let us be clear that those allowances are totally tax free. They are not salary, but tax-free allowances—and the Treasury does not even get a cut of that £150,000. Most of those Members should be paying at least 40% tax. When it comes to making changes to the cost of Government and Parliament, I suggest that that might be a good place to start.
I want to be clear about the link in the motion between reform of the House of Lords and the Boundary Commission review. If the Government are serious about reducing the cost of Parliament and about making the UK and the nations that make it up more democratic, their attempt to reduce the number of MPs—comprising the truly elected Chamber—is completely the wrong place to start. To begin with, we have the first-past-the-post system, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East mentioned, is not democratic. There are so many wasted votes. A number of them do not count because people are voting for someone who can never get elected in the seat. A system of proportional representation would be a much better way of extending democracy than trying to equalise the numbers in each constituency.
If the aim is to make the political system in this and other countries more democratic, it would be possible to make the Government a bit more transparent. The Cabinet Office is tasked with making government more transparent, but it has failed spectacularly—and I do not mean only this Government; I am not blaming this one alone, because previous Governments have spectacularly failed, too. Governments like to be in power; they like to keep power for themselves, so they like to make sure that people are not very clear about what is going on.
There are a couple more things that could be done to reform the House of Lords. We could get rid of the hereditary peers and the bishops. We could also—I think this would be a great thing to do—stop the House of Lords being able to introduce primary legislation. Why is the so-called “revising Chamber” able to introduce primary legislation? That Chamber is appointed, not elected. Members of the House of Lords should not be lawmakers in the countries of the UK. They are supposed to be part of a revising Chamber, so they should spend their time revising, not bringing legislation forward.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate, and the wide-ranging contributions that we have heard from across the House. I am particularly grateful for the support we have received from some Conservative Members, which is unusual and welcome. I thank all Members who have contributed, and I hope the House will support the motion.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
It has been an honour to listen to this well-attended and, at times, feisty and passionate debate. I must admit that I am somewhat surprised at the SNP’s obsession with this particular issue and that they would choose this subject for their Opposition day debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) noted, we could have discussed other issues. I lost count of the number of times that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about ermine.
Let us look at the public mood on this matter. A YouGov poll of June 2012 asked a simple question on the proposition:
“Reform of the House of Lords is vital: it should be a priority to change the system”.
Only 18% agreed, with 20% saying the House of Lords should be left alone. The overwhelming majority—52%—said that it was not and should not be a priority. The 2015 Conservative manifesto agreed with this principle by saying that it was “not a priority” in the next—meaning this—Parliament.
As the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons said at the beginning of the debate, the House of Lords has begun reform in the last few years. Important reforms have been introduced and they have been successful because they have been driven by the Lords themselves. Since the introduction of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, for instance, peers have been able to retire simply by giving written notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Jeremy Quin
The Minister has referred to reforms that have taken place over the past few years. Does he share my concern about the possibility that the motion, as drafted, could reduce the number of appointed peers to less than the number of hereditary peers?
Chris Skidmore
That is an interesting point, which I do not think has been made before in the debate. The motion could, in fact, suggest that the number of elected peers remain at 93, which would cause something of a constitutional abnormality.
Since the introduction of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, peers have been able to retire. Such retirement is permanent, and cannot be rescinded. More than 50 peers have chosen to retire, including 16 so far in 2016. That important reform has had an impact not just on the numbers in the House of Lords, but on the way in which it operates. The Act also provided for peers to be expelled for non-attendance, and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 gave the Lords new powers to expel its members for serious misconduct. The cost of the Lords has also been reduced by 14% in real terms since 2010.
Let me now deal with some of the excellent speeches that have been made today. I welcome the return of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) to the Front Bench. We once engaged in a debate together in Westminster Hall, but I am glad to see him back in the Chamber, and I am glad to see the rest of the shadow ministerial team as well.
When speaking of the number of peers who had been created, the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot to mention that it was a Labour Government who created 408 of the current number. More recently, Labour used a peerage to appoint Baroness Chakrabarti to the shadow Cabinet. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman decided to undermine her position here today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath made a fiery speech highlighting the essential fact of the British constitution—what matters is what works—and the vital role of the institutions that make up our Union. He also cited a key fact about boundary reform, pointing out that the call for equally sized constituencies had been a clarion call since the Chartists and the People’s Charter of 1838.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), my excellent predecessor, said that he was even willing to put his own marital relations at risk for the sake of his belief in reform of the House of Lords. He also said that boundary reform to bring about equally sized constituencies was an essential priority.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is talking about equalising constituency sizes in the House of Commons, and also about the importance of a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. Will he reflect on the fact that the United States House of Representatives has just 435 members, and the French National Assembly 577?
Chris Skidmore
That is a good point. I also recall that back in 2010, I think, the Liberal Democrat manifesto called for a reduction in the number of seats to 500. It is unfortunate that not a single Liberal Democrat is present today to discuss House of Lords reform.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made a lively and hyperbolic speech in which, perhaps somewhat disconcertingly, he demonstrated his expert knowledge of the “Carry On” movies. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) dated Lords reform back to 1719, but as a Tudor historian I can tell him that the issue of membership of the House of Lords and the detested appearance of so-called new-made parvenus such as Thomas Cromwell, the Thomas Audleys and the William Cecils suggest that today’s debate fits very nicely into the finest traditions of history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) spoke about the issue of retirement. I am pleased that that is already happening, as I mentioned earlier, but I think that if those in the other place have been watching the debate, they may be slightly concerned by his talk of attrition.
The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned recent comments by the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, about the size of the House of Lords and the fact that it needs to take the initiative on the issue. The Government agree that the House of Lords is too large, but believe that it must be for the Lords themselves to lead the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised the same issue, and I entirely agree with him. He also spoke about his agnosticism on the subject, and highlighted the need to protect historic precedents such as the Salisbury convention. I agree with that as well.
Let us be clear about the motion that we are discussing. This is not just about reform of the House of Lords; this is an attack on a Government’s manifesto commitment that we are determined to introduce—equal-sized constituencies and a reduction in the cost of politics in this House. At a time when many areas of public service have made sensible reductions and savings, the public will not forgive us if we do not put our own house in order.
Let us be clear: this motion does not seek simply to delay the boundary changes and boundary reform. We have already had a delay thanks to a motion, put down and voted on by Labour and Liberal Democrat Opposition Members. If we went into the 2020 general election with things as they are now, we would be elected on data and figures dating back to 2000 in England and to 2001 in Scotland. That status quo is simply unacceptable.
There is also an historical injustice, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath highlighted. There has been a clarion call to address unequal seats for nearly 200 years, and this Government are determined to enact the historic principle of equal seats. At the moment, some seats are almost twice the size of others. For example, North West Cambridgeshire has around 90,000 electors and Manchester Central has around 87,000, compared with Wirral West, which has approximately 54,200, and Kensington, which has 55,400 electors.
The boundary changes will address the unfairness of these current parliamentary boundaries. In Scotland, the independent Boundary Commission publishes its provisional maps and figures tomorrow drawing up the new-sized constituencies. They are provisional data, and I would encourage anybody watching this debate to get involved in the consultation process; it is closing in England and Wales on 5 December. The independent Boundary Commission is currently touring the country and anyone who is interested in constituency boundary reform should get involved.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Does the Minister accept that consideration must be given not only to the number of electors, but to geography? Constituencies such as mine in Scotland already have a landmass of 12,000 sq km. When we have constituencies that are so large, how on earth are we supposed to represent and be visible to all our constituents? This is not just about the numbers of electors; it has to be about geography and fairness for the electorate.
Chris Skidmore
When legislating on this, the previous Government absolutely recognised that point, and there is special provision in the current boundary proposals published tomorrow to protect Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, even though those constituencies are particularly small in voter numbers, given the wide area that they cover. Those remain unchanged. But let us look at the numbers for Scotland. Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has an electorate of 45,898. In comparison, Linlithgow and East Falkirk has an electorate of 83,593. That is a difference of 37,695. There are almost twice as many electors. I cannot believe the SNP is defending having one elector whose vote is worth twice that of another; that is an historical injustice that this Government are determined to correct.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
I am the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Why not reduce the size of seats to an electorate of 45,000 across the UK, instead of increasing them to 75,000?
Chris Skidmore
It is up to the independent commission to draw up the figures, but this Government are determined to ensure that we will be the Government to introduce the proposals first advanced in the clarion calls of the Chartists 200 years ago to have equal-sized constituencies and equal votes across the United Kingdom.
Question put.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and whether the Government were going to take mitigating measures to compensate the worst-affected women. He responded that the Scottish Government could use their powers to compensate them. At the end of questions that day, I raised a point of order. I was generous in my choice of language and suggested that perhaps the Secretary of State knew something that we did not—namely, that powers over pensions were coming to Scotland. I asked the Secretary of State, through the Chair, if he would correct the record, knowing full well that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 specifically excludes the possibility of the Scottish Parliament having competence over pensions. I was somewhat enraged to receive a letter from the Secretary of State this afternoon which assures me that his statement was correct. We all know that people spin from time to time, but that is disingenuous to say the least, and the Secretary of State should really come clean and recognise that he has misled the House. I ask for your support as to how we can—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. First, we should not say that a Member is disingenuous or that they have misled the House. Let me see if I can be helpful here. Obviously there is a disagreement over the views and the interpretation, and I think that there is a way to deal with this—[Interruption.] Just bear with me. This could be helpful. You know me better than that. Give me a chance. There is a way to deal with this through the Procedure Committee, but it might be better to have a face-to-face debate in Westminster Hall. Why not put in for an Adjournment debate where this can be settled in the best possible way?
Ian Blackford
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your advice, but there is an important issue here. The Secretary of State is giving a level of competence to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that they do not have, and it is important that we in this House have the opportunity to call him to account. I say clearly that he was wrong and that he should correct the record.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I understand that he says he is wrong; the hon. Gentleman has made that point. What I am saying is that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to put the case and get the answers. That is the way forward. There is also the option of the Procedure Committee, but I think that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to set out categorically where the answer lies.
Business without Debate
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Student Season Tickets on the Lakes Line
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I rise to present a petition regarding student season tickets on the Lakes Line on behalf of sixth-form students in Westmorland from Windermere, Staveley, Burneside and Kendal, calling for a fair price for rail travel to school.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that Northern Rail has taken a decision to remove post-16 students from the student season tickets system on the Lakes Line; further that students face a massive increase in the cost of travel, which will mean that the journey to Sixth Form in Kendal will become unaffordable for many; and further that an online petition on a similar topic has received 308 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Northern Rail to rethink the decision to remove post-16 students from the student season tickets system on the Lakes Line,
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001953]
Railway Stations: Car Parking Charges
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the specific issue of the increase in parking charges at Rugby station that took place on 5 September and was imposed by the operator of the west coast main line, Virgin Trains. At the same time, I want to consider the broader consequences that the lack of restriction on rail operators’ ability to increase car parking charges may have on our transport network.
There are many reasons why this topic is of great importance to Rugby. The rail connection is important to our local economy. Businesses locate there for many reasons, one of which is good access to London—Rugby benefits from a 50-minute journey time on the west coast main line to Euston. The number of people who commute to London, Coventry and Birmingham and use the line on a daily basis is increasing. That increase can be seen in how much the station is used, which has pretty much doubled since 2007-08, when 1.16 million entries and exits were recorded, to 2.04 million in 2014-15.
The provision of parking at Rugby station has increased as passenger numbers have increased, but a significant milestone in the development of Rugby station was the west coast main line modernisation that took place in 2008. The vast improvement in reliability and journey times was welcomed by the many people in Rugby who use the line. Prior to the modernisation, the parking was originally on the south side of the station—the town side—in car parks one and two, but there has always been a tradition of private operators making use of vacant sites in the vicinity. In many cases, that competition kept prices down, and of course residents and commuters have also used on-street parking, which has led to the substantial use of resident parking permits around the station.
Significant additional and welcome capacity was provided on 1 September 2009, when a new multi-storey car park was delivered, providing 535 spaces, over five levels and with CCTV. The delivery of that car park coincided with an increase in the daily rate from £6 to £7, and in the cost of an annual season ticket from £655 to £858—a 31% increase. That was met with a lot of complaints, particularly from the Rugby Rail Users Group. I must pay tribute to the RRUG for its campaigning for services and facilities at Rugby station. In the face of that complaint, and of the competition from the locally run, independent vacant site opposite the multi-storey, the rise was reversed and the price went back to £6. It has been held at £6 for a number of years, as a consequence of the competition provided by the local, independent operator.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will know that Rugby is not too far away from Coventry, so many people commute from Coventry to work in Rugby and vice versa. The cost of peak-time parking in Coventry has increased by about 33%, while weekday off-peak parking was recently axed at Coventry and some commuters can be paying about 140% more. That has been allied to the recent price increases in rail tickets, the abolition of student facilities and the abolition in respect of senior citizen railcard holders, so the cost is considerable. During the same period, wages over the past five years have probably increased by 10% whereas prices for rail tickets have increased by about 30%, including parking.
Mark Pawsey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because the increase that he refers to in Coventry took place at exactly the same time as the increase that took place in Rugby. I am sure he will share my concern that we received less than a month’s notice from Virgin about the new price increase that became effective on 5 September—I received a notification on 9 August. Not only was that inadequate notice, but it came at a time when many people were on holiday, which led to a great number of emails coming into my inbox from constituents who were bothered about not only the short notice, but the fact that the increase in Rugby was 50%, with the daily rate increasing from £6 to £9. More importantly, at Rugby the off-peak charge of £4 has been abolished, with the annual charge increasing at the same time from £735 to £950—a 30% increase.
One of the first things I did, as a diligent MP, was to write to Virgin, asking it for justification of the increase it had imposed, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), whom I am pleased to see in his place. In its replies, Virgin argued that the rate it had previously applied was a discounted one, which is certainly true, as the rate had decreased from £7 to £6 a day in the face of local competition. It also argued that the car park was usually full by 9 am and so there was no benefit from having an off-peak rate. Virgin also spoke about local comparisons, but the rates it quoted to me were mostly from car parks at other stations—Virgin referred to Coventry and tried to imply that its car park offered better value for money because it had better facilities.
Mr Cunningham
The car park charges have increased from £5 to £12, which is a considerable increase, by any stretch of the imagination.
Mark Pawsey
I am very much aware that the situation in Coventry is rather more serious in that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have to pay a greater increase on a higher price than my constituents do in Rugby.
The Minister was very kind in his reply. He expressed some sympathy with my case and referred to his own experience on the west coast main line, using Preston station. He pointed out that, regrettably, car park charges are not covered by the franchise agreement, and that the franchise operator is able to choose to increase charges as it sees fit. He also told me that his team had been made aware by Virgin that one of its objectives was to discourage non-rail users. That certainly may be the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency where the station is much closer to the town centre, but I am not sure whether the same case can be applied to Rugby where the station is much more distant from the centre.
Let me deal with points that were made by the operator. Many of the comparisons that it gave me were for car parks that it operated itself. For example, it cited that of Coventry, which is closer to the city centre. There are many locally operated car parks where the prices are considerably cheaper. For example, Warwick Parkway on the Chiltern line charges £5 a day. In looking around, I found one or two other areas where commuter stations have significantly cheaper prices. For example, commuters in Hungerford, Berkshire, are charged just £2.40 to park their car. I wonder whether the more relevant comparison for Virgin might be other car parks in and around Rugby. In the John Barford multi-storey car park in the town centre, there is a daily rate of £5. Virgin says that the removal of off-peak rates demonstrates that there is a need for further provision. I wonder whether it is taking advantage of the fact that the car park is pretty full by hiking up rates quite substantially.
I do not accept the premise that the places in Rugby are taken up by non-rail users. The station is too far from the town centre. In any event, it is not difficult for the operator to link the car park ticket to the purchase of a rail ticket, thereby making certain that non-rail users are excluded.
Mr Cunningham
The point about Coventry station being nearer the town centre is a bit of a misnomer. Most people who use that station come from the outskirts of Coventry—a mile and a half or two miles from some of the more distant parts of Coventry—and, to some extent, from some of the surrounding areas. That is a bit of a red herring.
Mark Pawsey
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s views, but it should not be difficult to link the price of the parking to the purchase of a rail ticket. That would ensure that the provision that has been made for rail users is actually taken up by rail users.
One thing that is certainly happening as the price has gone up in Rugby is that people are going on a wider search for free parking. In my constituency, we had a real problem with people parking on a newly developed road, on Technology Drive, which led to all sorts of road safety problems. We have now managed to introduce double yellow lines there. I did ask one driver why they parked there. They said that they were doing so to save £6. Now that saving is £9, and there is an even bigger incentive to look around further for places to park.
The rate of increase imposed by Virgin is unreasonable. I accept that there might have been a need for an increase, but 50% is very substantial. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, commuters’ salaries have not increased at that rate. Many constituents have told me that the cost of parking often exceeds the price of rail travel. The shorter the journey, the greater the proportion of their journey cost is taken up in parking. That applies to people going to Coventry and Rugby. If I park my car on Sunday evening to travel to work and return to Rugby on Thursday, I pay five times £9, which is £45, to park, but a super off peak ticket including zone 1, which has some restrictions on use, costs £38. It is crazy that the cost of parking should exceed the cost of rail travel.
I do recognise the need for the operator to recover its investment cost The car park was clearly expensive to develop, but the increase is disproportionate. It involved no consultation and inadequate notice. I wonder whether the operator takes seriously its role of providing parking as part of an integrated transport network. At Rugby station there is lots of travel advice and there are lots of leaflets, but I could find no information about parking charges. To a non-regular user, £9 will come as a shock.
I fear that high parking charges will lead to greater congestion on our already busy road network. I was interested to read the article in The Sunday Times at the weekend drawing attention to congestion having increased by 40% in four years. High parking charges are an incentive for people to use their cars, especially for shorter journeys. For a Rugby resident who travels five days a week, it would cost £45 per week to park their car, whereas the use of the M6 or the A45 is free. We are forcing people off the rail network, into their cars and on to the motorways. In addition, high charges for car parks encourage people to be dropped off and collected at the station, which adds to congestion around stations. At Rugby station, access is already a challenge, and high parking charges are only making the problem worse.
In his reply, the Minister told me that the Government have control over fares, but not over parking. The Government regulate roughly half of all rail fares and do so to make sure that rail fares are reasonable, to protect passengers from market abuse and to ensure that passengers are treated fairly. Is it not reasonable to apply that principle to car parking charges as well? In the light of the recent changes at Rugby station, is it fair and reasonable for the charge to be increased by 50%?
Mr Cunningham
Another factor is the investment in Coventry and Warwickshire. I know that the hon. Gentleman has done as much work on the issue as the Coventry MPs. Any leader of a local authority will be asked about parking because that adds to costs, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. It is an important factor in the development of the local economy of Coventry and Warwickshire.
Mark Pawsey
Absolutely. We want to see more effective use of our public transport network. What is wrong with including car parking and the ability to control car parking charges in the franchise? There is a strong case for a joined-up approach to protect passengers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing this debate, on a subject close to his heart. As he pointed out, he wrote to me only last month to set out his concerns and those of the Rugby Rail Users Group. As he rightly points out, I park at Virgin Preston on the west coast, where price rises—admittedly, of only 20%—came in last July, so I am not personally insensitive to the points that he makes.
I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that station car parking is not a simple matter, particularly in view of the fact that we have more than 2,500 stations of all sizes across the country that link the railway with the communities and people they serve. Clearly, they provide the first and last impression of the railway and often of the communities themselves, so every station needs to provide passengers with a safe, accessible and comfortable experience. A good station should also serve the wider community with social, retail and leisure facilities. Stations can and should go beyond their traditional role as portals to the rail network, and should be fully integrated, as my hon. Friend mentioned, into local transport networks to make multimodal travel far simpler. They should be catalysts for local development and play an important role in supporting local economic growth.
I urge all local enterprise partnerships and councils to think about how they, too, can support the provision of better car parking across the rail network. In that context, we can all recognise just how crucial car parks are, not least in enabling passengers to access the rail network, by parking their cars close to the station in a safe, convenient car park. That is why it is important that train operators have the flexibility to set commercially viable car park fees.
If fees are too low, the operator will provide lower returns to the Government, thereby increasing the taxpayer contribution to the railways. If fees are too high, however, the car park will be underused, and that, too, will lead to lower premium payments to the Government. A commercially flexible rate allows maximum revenue to be derived from car parking income, which reduces the requirement for taxpayer support for the franchise. It is important to stress that car park charges are not just a tool for revenue generation, but provide an important foundation for investment in not just trains but stations.
Let me try to specifically address the issues in Rugby. As my hon. Friend recollects from our reply to him, the Government do not own the car parks; train companies and others—local councils, for example—do, and that varies across the country. I am sure Virgin will have noted his criticisms of the communication strategy it adopted and of whether it has adequate capacity at Rugby and, indeed, at Coventry and other stations across its network.
Virgin West Coast has received a number of complaints from passengers that the station car park was always full. On investigation, it became apparent that the charges were much lower than in the surrounding areas and that the station car park was being used by non-rail users. I should just stress that my comments in my reply were specifically about Rugby, not about Preston, and that is what we were told by Virgin.
In a bid to be more helpful than that reply might have indicated, let me say that my hon. Friend might be interested to know that the Rail Delivery Group, which represents the train operating companies, is looking at how to better measure the passenger experience, because the group, along with the Government, recognises that it does not just start when a passenger boards a train. The group is looking at the entire range of ways that the passenger interacts with the railway network. That will include not just buying a ticket before they get to the station, but such things as car parking, ease of access, the likelihood of finding a space and ease of payment.
All that work will inform Transport Focus as it looks into how to better design the national rail passenger survey. That survey, in turn, has a specific impact on franchise design and the way in which we hold train operating companies to account. If a franchise fails to meet satisfaction levels in the national rail passenger survey and underperforms, it will suffer financial penalties. As we constantly refine the survey, issues such as car parking will form part of that and may well become something on which we choose to judge train operating companies.
As more spaces become available for those who wish to catch a train, I hope we can start to bring fees into line with those in other car parks in all local economic areas. We want to encourage investment in car parking and, moreover, to drive better value for money across all station facilities. That can partly be done through franchise competitions, and that will include the forthcoming west coast franchise competition, where we will challenge bidders to innovate in how they seek to provide car parking. We will look at how they want to improve facilities at stations for all users.
We are already doing a lot to improve car parking as part of the wider passenger experience. Train operating companies will need to take a much longer-term view of managing station assets than they do at the moment—over 40 years, rather than just the existing franchise length. That will include car parks, and it will mean incremental improvements continually to the quality and standard of the facilities on offer. Investment patterns will now start to mirror not just a train operator’s franchise term, but the lifespan of the bit of infrastructure that the train operating company will be investing in. That will not mean just a lack of potholes; it might mean more innovative ways to deliver car parking that meet the passengers’ needs.
We are also conducting a review of security and safety in our car parks and stations, because a well-lit, well-maintained car park, covered by CCTV, provides passengers with reassurance not only that they are safe at a station but that the price of their parking fee and travel ticket has been reinvested back into the railway.
Innovation is also crucial. That is why I am looking to train operating companies to make it easier for the passenger to pre-book a parking space, so that they have certainty when they arrive at the station that they will be able to park without difficulty; nor will they need to delay their journey or risk missing their train by having to use complicated coin-operated payment machines that may or may not be out of order. We will also seek to make far better use of station travel plans, which my hon. Friend mentioned, so that passengers understand the options that are available to them in how they reach the station that best meets their needs and is the most sustainable method of transport.
Mark Pawsey
I welcome the Minister’s remarks, but will he address the broader integrated view? There is a grave danger that if car parking charges are disproportionate, that will encourage more car use and encourage people to seek to park for free around the station, causing problems for residents.
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The impact will differ from station to station across the network. The stations that I am familiar with all have their own quirks and differences in terms of how local people utilise them, approach them, park, drop passengers off, and so on. This can have a substantial impact on the local road network. It is very important that train operators work together with local highway authorities to plan the local road network immediately around the station to make sure that no passenger is inconvenienced. I can think of many cases at peak hours where, all too often, we have traffic jams. I hope that train operating companies will hear my plea for them to work far more closely with the local highway authority to plan traffic flow and ensure that, wherever problems can be minimised, we seek to do so.
As I keep saying, we need to continue to invest in our station facilities.
Mr Cunningham
The Minister said that he hoped that the train operators would take note of what he says. May I suggest, in the nicest possible way, that it would not be a bad idea to take our concerns to a meeting with the train operators’ representatives?
Paul Maynard
I should praise the hon. Gentleman for almost being psychic in predicting what I was about to say. I am more than happy to have that conversation next time I meet Virgin West Coast, which I try to do as frequently as I can. Only today, I heard about some of the interesting plans in Coventry for a new boulevard into the town centre and potential new car parking facilities that, by expanding capacity, might allow costs to come down. Coventry is having an interesting time. I gather that in Rugby there is also substantial investment in cycle-rail facilities, which help to ensure that people have more options in how they get to the station, including bicycle hire. That is a good step forward.
Mr Cunningham
The Minister will know that in Coventry we have the NUCKLE project, which we are hoping to get started very soon. That has taken about 10 years to get off the ground.
Paul Maynard
I am always happy to hear news of Coventry’s progress. My visits to Coventry are probably in my diary as we speak, without my even knowing about it. I look forward to going there.
I recognise that capacity, as much as anything else, is often key in car parks around stations. It is important to design them to allow extra decks to be placed on top with greater flexibility, because demand is going to keep on growing as more and more people use our railways. We also need to redesign stations themselves better to reflect passenger flows through them. Many of these stations are Victorian and often have not been updated since that time. We will always need to invest in our railways and to change and adapt to face that increasing demand.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby recognises that such extensive change cannot happen overnight, but I hope that he and his constituents will see the change in the station environment at Rugby—as at Coventry and elsewhere—that long-term investment can bring. I hope that I have laid out some aspects of how we are seeking to re-evaluate the entire spectrum of the passenger experience, so that we capture every interaction between passenger and rail network to make sure that, where there is dissatisfaction, we as a Government not only become aware of it but start to use it as a tool to drive up improvements on behalf of the passenger through the franchising mechanism. I will be more than happy to report back to him once I have spoken again to Virgin West Coast.
Question put and agreed to.
draft Contracting Out (Functions Relating to the Royal Parks) order 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracting Out (Functions relating to the Royal Parks) Order 2016.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I welcome the hon. Member for Tooting to her position.
The order will use the powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to contract out the direct management of the Royal Parks estate. Its management functions are currently performed by an executive agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that reports directly to the Secretary of State. To be clear, when I speak of the Royal Parks estate, I refer to the eight Royal Parks in London owned by the sovereign in right of the Crown. In addition to those, Brompton cemetery, Victoria Tower gardens and other areas of land are managed on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Royal Parks Agency, as set out in the order. For clarity, the parks are as follows: St James’s Park, Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Green Park, Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill, Greenwich Park, Richmond Park and Bushy Park.
I am sure I am not the only Member who has enjoyed the pleasure of strolling through one of the Royal Parks. In fact, more than 77 million people visit the Royal Parks estate each year; it enjoys a satisfaction rating of 98%. The Royal Parks are the heart and soul of London and it is difficult to imagine the city without them. They are an integral part of the identity and life of the capital and the country, whether as a focus for national ceremonial activities or hosting international events such as the Olympics.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I understand why the Government wish to contract these functions out, but will the Minister give the Committee an unequivocal assurance that this company limited by guarantee, if and when it is formed, will not have carte blanche to do as it pleases, for example by imposing admission charges to the parks and forcing the public to pay for something that is now free?
Tracey Crouch
The rest of my speech will assure my right hon. Friend that that is exactly the case. This is an opportunity for a charity organisation to go ahead and do things without coming back through Parliament in certain respects. If he will allow me to continue, I am sure the rest of my speech will reassure him.
The Government are keen to ensure that the parks are in a position to thrive and prosper long into the future. This proposal is a positive step towards that long-term goal. Our purpose is to ensure that the parks remain very much as they are—outstanding free spaces for all—but the governance and management arrangements need to be revised to enable the parks to operate more effectively and plan better for that future. A similar transfer in 1998 has enabled Historic Royal Palaces, another DCMS public body, to thrive and prosper as an independent charity for more than 18 years.
The Government’s primary objective in contracting out the management of the Royal Parks is to ensure their long-term protection through more effective use of park assets and resources within a governance framework that delivers proper accountability to the public. However, it is important to stress that the ownership of the estate will not change, and the Secretary of State will still be accountable to Parliament for its management. What was appropriate when the agency was set up more than 20 years ago is simply no longer a suitable model for today’s financial realities.
Back in 1993, when the agency was established, almost all its funding came from the Exchequer. That has changed over the years, and taxpayer funding now amounts to around 30% of the cost of running the parks; the rest is self-generated. Applying Government accounting rules to an organisation that generates the vast majority of its own income makes financial planning very difficult: for example, parks are not able to build up a reserve, carry over income from one year to the next or fully benefit from the opportunities offered by commercial income.
Under the proposed arrangements, the new organisation will be able to plan for the longer term rather than on a year-by-year basis, and operate more efficiently for the benefit of the parks and their visitors. A single charitable body, governed independently of the Government, will be able to make a more compelling case to support corporate sponsors, private donors and charitable trusts, as well as attracting new volunteers. An existing charity, the Royal Parks Foundation, fundraises for the parks; merging that existing charity with the new organisation will bring an alignment of objectives and operational efficiencies. The foundation’s board supports the move.
At this point I would like to record my thanks to both the boards—the foundation’s board and the agency advisory board—for their sterling contribution, and that of their staff, over the years.
Under the new model there will be a contract between the Secretary of State and the charitable company that will set out what the Royal Parks must do in return for the funding provided, and which will also enable it to use the assets of the estate to raise money for the reinvestment into the parks.
The draft contract sets out key performance indicators. For example, the Royal Parks must maintain its green spaces, buildings and structures to high standards and the contract will include targets against which achievement can be measured. The Government will continue to monitor its performance against those targets and undertake contract reviews every five years.
I can also assure hon. Members that the Royal Parks will continue to support state ceremonials and national events as they do now. Can I also absolutely make it clear that the Royal Parks will remain free to visit and the Government will continue to provide funding.
The point of the new arrangement is to allow the parks to use their income and assets more effectively for the benefit of the estate and park visitors. The organisation will continue to be subject to planning and licensing control by local authorities. There will not be all-year-round rock concerts or any net loss of green space to new developments.
The agency currently balances the commercial activities with protecting the intrinsic qualities of the parks very well, and that will continue. For example, Winter Wonderland is immensely popular, attracting more than 3 million people each year. It is a firm favourite in London’s Christmas calendar and attracts visitors from around the world, bringing income to London and money for reinvestment in the parks. Entry is free and it takes place at a time when Hyde Park is traditionally rather empty of visitors.
There are also low-impact commercial activities that deliver valuable income, such as renovating redundant buildings within the estate. Another recent example is a decaying unused building in Kensington Gardens that has been converted into a beautiful café overlooking the Italian gardens. Not only has that improved the public realm and added a much-welcomed facility for visitors but it also generates income.
The Government expect the new charity to continue to identify ways in which assets can be used in positive, creative and appropriate ways, but it is not a proposal that will deliver unacceptable commercialisation of the parks.
The parks already benefit from the generosity and hard work of many volunteers who support the estate in a variety of ways. It is our expectation that a new charitable organisation is likely to be able to attract even more new volunteers.
The agency has been closely engaged with representative groups and the proposal has been discussed at regular meetings over the past 12 months, to which friends’ groups, concessionaries, partner organisations, key agencies, local residents’ groups, local businesses, MPs and local councillors have been invited. Meet the Park Team events have been held in each park and, as a consequence of that engagement, there has been almost wholly positive response to the proposal.
The Mayor of London’s Office is represented on the project board and local authority leaders are represented on the Royal Parks advisory board, which supports the transition. Most recognise that the proposal is seeking to bring long-term financial stability to the Royal Parks estate.
I am also pleased to inform colleagues that the Secretary of State is in the process of appointing trustees to the board of the new organisation, following an open recruitment campaign, and I am delighted that Loyd Grossman has been appointed as its first chair. He has a long association with the heritage sector in particular and will be an enormous asset.
Other appointments will be made by the Mayor of London and will include local authority leaders. The Royal Household will have ex officio representation. Under the new arrangements the parks will continue to be policed by the Metropolitan police and changes to park regulations will continue to require the approval of Parliament.
The only area of land that is managed by the agency but is not in the ownership of either monarch or Government, is Grosvenor Square garden, which is owned by the Grosvenor Estate. This order would allow the Government to contract out the direct management of that square to Grosvenor. The Government will consider doing that if it can be demonstrated that there are operational savings and investment opportunities that will deliver significant improvements to the gardens, but only on condition that it remains a free public amenity for the benefit of all.
Most park activities are already contracted out and what the public see from the parks will not change dramatically, if at all. The Government are seeking to build a sustainable financial future for the parks and this measure will help deliver that. Subject to Parliament’s agreement, it is envisaged that the new arrangements will take effect on 1 March 2017.
To conclude, what is proposed is evolution rather than revolution, and enables the parks’ operating model to reflect the realities and opportunities of today. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I hope it is the first of many.
The Royal Parks are fundamental to so many who live in the surrounding areas, as well as to millions of visitors each year, many of whom may not otherwise have access to safe outdoor spaces to enjoy. It therefore makes sense to ensure that they are under management that proves most beneficial for their success, that allows them to flourish, and that maximises their potential for all who enjoy them. The Opposition will not be calling for a Division, but we have some questions about the draft order and I would like to hear some reassurances from the Minister.
First, although I welcome the prospect of the parks not being over-commercialised, commercialisation will be inevitable unless there is some element of Government financial support, through both Government and capital grants. The Royal Parks would need to host at least double the current number of events of significant magnitude to raise the same amount of income as is currently provided by Government grants each year. Furthermore, without capital grants, the Royal Parks will be unable to carry out important regeneration works that would lead to future income generation. Can the Minister assure me that Government financial support will be continued?
Secondly, although it is not openly stated in the draft order, I welcome the promise that all current staff at the Royal Parks Agency will transfer over to the new organisation; that there will be no redundancies; and that staff will still receive a civil service pension. As none of that is openly stated in the draft order, will the Minister confirm for the record that that is the case?
When new staff are recruited in future, will their pensions and pay scale differ from those transferred from the civil service at the outset? What precise plans do the Government have for Grosvenor Square garden with respect to contracting out? Will the new contract explicitly state which concessions, stalls and new commercial avenues would be acceptable so as to ensure that they are in keeping with the Royal Parks’ heritage? Importantly, will be there be a commitment to promote access to the park spaces for schools and community groups from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas?
Tracey Crouch
I am delighted to hear that the Government have support for the overall principle of what we are trying to achieve through the draft order.
The hon. Lady asked about the long-term funding for the agency. We do not currently have any plans for the parks to become fully self-financing, so the Government will continue to provide funding. Obviously, these precise figures will depend on certain spending review decisions in the future. There are no plans at the moment to stop that financial support, and £10 million of capital has been put forward for next year.
In response to the hon. Lady’s question about civil servants and employees, the answer is yes; they will remain on the civil service scheme. With regard to her specific question about commercialisation, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we do not expect this to be a means of providing unacceptable measures of commercialisation. Indeed, the point of the new arrangement is to allow the parks to use their income and assets more effectively for those who are using the estate. As I said in my opening remarks, the new organisation will continue to be subject to planning and licensing controls.
The hon. Lady asked about Grosvenor Square garden. The contractor is required to inject significant capital investment into the square and take on all the maintenance obligations at no cost to the public purse. The Government are complying with procurement regulations on that, but we are still negotiating the specifics.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about schools. Of course we want everybody to be able to enjoy the parks. We would expect schools to be as welcome in future as they are now, if not more so, and the Royal Parks will continue to run its education programmes throughout the estate.
Question put and agreed to.
Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 718).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Owen. Hon. Members might be a little puzzled about why I am moving the motion, but this a statutory instrument made under the negative procedure, which has been prayed against and is therefore coming before us today. So I am starting off and the Minister will respond, which is the opposite way around from what we normally expect. I hope that that is now clear to everyone.
I have, in essence, three questions to ask about the regulations. First, why were they introduced at all? Secondly, if they were felt to be necessary, why did no consultation take place, as outlined in the accompanying explanatory note? Thirdly, as it was felt necessary to introduce such a measure, why was no impact assessment undertaken, as should normally be the case for regulations of this kind?
I want to make the case that, given those three questions, it is necessary to suspend the changes, undertake an impact assessment and a consultation, and look again at the regulations in the light of those two procedures. That is what I will dwell on briefly this afternoon. I trust that the Minister will be able to satisfy me on at least some of those points as we discuss the regulations.
First, the measure is about combined heat and power, and the availability of credits under the renewable heat incentive for the operation of biomass-based CHP. At the moment, such operations are based on the achievement of a CHP quality certificate and the allocation of RHI credits according to the operation of a grant under that certificate. The change made under the regulations—a change that has come very abruptly, which I will come on to—is a new distinction between RHI-based CHP plant that produces 20% or more of its total energy output as electricity, and plant that produces less than that 20%.
The explanatory documents might lead one to believe that that distinction is being made to ensure that any plant that receives RHI underwriting is as efficient as possible. The policy background section of the scheme’s explanatory memorandum states:
“Some types of CHP plant deliver only low levels power output and/or poor overall efficiency…Such plant are therefore in receipt of the biomass-CHP tariff for all their heat output despite not delivering the benefits in terms of efficient use of resources”.
Frankly, that is not so, or, at best, only partially so.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, the way in which CHP plants work is based on the efficient capture of all the energy inputs into the plant and the most efficient outputs from the plant—be that electricity and/or heat—whereby the CHP plant captures what, in a conventional plant, normally goes up the chimney as wasted heat, instead using that heat for district heating, industrial purposes or other uses. There is no intrinsic delineation within the construction of a CHP plant that causes more or less than 20% of its output to be electricity. The electricity output of those plants varies considerably depending on the heat load the plant is required to service, which may vary throughout the year.
CHP plants are normally based on a turbine that produces steam and a capture of the exhausts from that turbine process. The high-level steam produced from the turbine is normally used to produce electricity; the lower-level steam, which comes about as a result of the exhaust processes of the turbine being driven, is captured for heat. However, it is not necessarily the case that one cannot be transferred to the other; indeed, it frequently is. Some of the high-level steam, which may be used to produce electricity if the heat load requires it, may be diverted to supply the heat.
As far as CHP is concerned, the normal case is not that a plant producing less electricity than its output is less efficient than a plant producing more electricity—it is simply designed for a different site purpose. It may well be that the site purpose is to provide a high, constant heat load, or there may be other site purposes for which the heat load is different. Frankly, the policy background part of the explanatory memorandum is at least somewhat misleading on the rationale for the imposition of this abrupt change in remuneration for CHP plants.
It does not matter, in terms of overall power output, whether a CHP plant is producing a lot of electricity or a little bit, providing that the overall output is captured efficiently either for heat or electricity, and that the overall conversion of the fuel input to heat or electricity output is as efficient as it can possibly be. That is the criterion that should be applied to CHP plants. I suggest that it has not been applied under the regulations.
There may be other reasons for the imposition of the frankly arbitrary 20% level, which may relate to what funding comes from where and for what purpose it is used. I am sure the Minister will expatiate on that when he responds. In principle, it does not seem to me that there is any justification on efficiency or power output grounds for the changes to be made.
My second question is, if the changes were to be made, why was there no consultation? Among other things, that might have teased out some of the issues I have raised. The documentation relating to the regulations states that no consultation was considered, although some informal soundings were taken from industry. The reason given was that CHP plants that came in at under 20% might smuggle themselves through the process at the last minute and get the higher rate of RHI remuneration, thereby thwarting the purpose of the regulations while the consultation was taking place. That, I kid you not, is exactly what it says in the documentation. That is plainly a nonsense, because it takes between 18 months and two years to get any CHP plant planned, commissioned, purchased, installed and under way. The idea that any CHP plant that was not in receipt, or potentially in receipt, of RHI would suddenly spring up and install itself while a consultation was taking place is a bizarre thing to contemplate.
There must therefore be other reasons for there having been no consultation. Cabinet Office guidelines provide for consultation to be the norm on such occasions unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, what I have described is not, frankly, an exceptional circumstance. It is suggested that it is such a peculiar circumstance that it is exceptional—perhaps it is exceptional, but only in its peculiarity and for no other reason.
Thirdly, the Department did not produce an impact assessment on the changes, either. The claim is that that was because
“no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen.”
That strikes me as a rather strange locution. Because CHP plants take a long time to commission and introduce, a number of plants, which the Department had encouraged to go ahead, were in the process of being commissioned and installed when this abrupt change was announced on 7 July for implementation on 1 August. Those plants had no opportunity to change their mode of operation, their installation arrangements or anything else before the change came into place.
One direct example is that a number of plants had been in the process of being installed for poultry producers. Those plants were potentially going to be very efficient, in that they were to use poultry litter as their power source and have a slave heat load. They were therefore calibrated so that the majority of output would go to the slave heat load for heat, because that was how the plant was to be designed to serve its purpose—it was not going to be inefficient—and about 6% to 7% of the overall output was to be electricity.
It would be possible for those plants to be installed with a different calibration and therefore come under the scheme guidelines, but the producers would have to work out how to reinstall and recalibrate the plants to provide a heat load for the poultry in the first place. The effect is that a number of those plants will have great difficulty in going ahead, and it has been estimated that £170 million of investment is at risk. Therefore, far from the changes having no industrial or voluntary sector effect, there is a substantial industrial effect as a result of the changes.
For all those reasons, I suggest that the safest course of action would be to suspend the changes, carry out a consultation and produce an impact assessment. That would not lead to any danger of new plants suddenly coming in under the wire. If it is still felt necessary to make the changes after all that, and after consideration of what CHP plants can do to make the changes necessary, so be it. However, I suggest that to go ahead with the changes on such a thin raft of evidence, and on such a poorly designed basis of operation, does not make safe our goals of ensuring that the renewable heat incentive provides for the decarbonisation of heat in an efficient way and of encouraging plants to develop in that way. I suggest to the Minister in a friendly manner that securing those goals might be the best course of action not just for the industry and the renewable heat incentive, but for the future of decarbonisation in the heat sector as a whole.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
May I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Southampton, Test back to his position? His absence was short, but we missed him. He made his contribution ably and has saved me from making several points, although I will repeat some of his. We share his concerns about the lack of clarity, the lack of adequate consultation and the lack of an adequate impact assessment.
When the changes were originally brought forward, they were approved by colleagues of mine at Holyrood, largely due to inadequate, and in all honesty misleading— I do not believe it was deliberately misleading, but it was undoubtedly inadequate—information provided to the Scottish Government. They were told reliably by the Department of Energy and Climate Change that the regulations would have a negligible impact in Scotland, and that only two projects would fall as a result. Since the regulations came into force, several of us have come across constituents and companies—considerably more than two—that will be severely adversely affected by them. I believe that there were nine live applications in the system that was available to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but that information was not provided to the Scottish Government when they made their decision.
There is a really important lesson to be learned here. There is a degree of overlap in competencies between this place and Holyrood—between the Government here and the Scottish Government—in how certain regulations come into being and who takes responsibility for what. The utmost clarity needs to be provided, and the level of discourse between the two Governments needs to be improved. Mistakes must not be made that lead to the Scottish Government being provided with information about the impact of changes that is utterly misleading and damages the Scottish economy.
The regulations have had a damaging impact not just in Scotland but right across the country, and we very much support the hon. Gentleman’s call for the Government to go back to the drawing board. There may be a case for the changes, but it has undoubtedly not been made—or at least has not been made properly.
The Minister is new to his position, and it would be unfair to burden him with the mistakes that were made by the previous Department and previous Ministers, but it behoves him and his Department to learn from those mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated. There is a real issue here, of which this situation is symptomatic. The goalposts of support for low-carbon electricity production have been repeatedly and randomly moved, without any clear strategic end in place. That is certainly how it seems to me. That has substantially damaged the sector’s confidence that the Government will keep their word, which has increased the cost of borrowing, and the uncertainty is damaging our ambition to meet our climate change targets and carbon reduction plans. That must not continue.
The former Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change conducted an important investigation of investor confidence and made it clear that this situation must not continue. The changes have made things more expensive and damaged our ability not just to deliver on our carbon reduction plans but to deliver the energy that we require. As well as answering our questions about the consultation, the reasons for the changes and why proper clarity was not provided to the Scottish Government, will the Minister reassure us that past mistakes will not be repeated?
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As a signed-up member of what I call the classical liberal elite, I have a prejudice against any kind of subsidy. Subsidies distort the market. The advantage of a free-moving price is that it ensures that there is sufficient demand to command a price that makes it worthwhile for the producer to incur the production costs to furnish that demand. By introducing a subsidy, one distorts that mechanism and misallocates resources accordingly. I would therefore ordinarily expect to support a measure such as this one that, if only in part, withdraws a subsidy, with some enthusiasm.
However, even for me—an ideologue—the question of equity arises. Yesterday I received representations, particularly on behalf of the poultry industry, that suggest that investments were made on the basis of the Government’s commitments that are now unviable as a consequence of the regulations. I would be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could reassure me on that count.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I welcome the contributions of the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Aberdeen South and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West. I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Southampton, Test back to his place. He has great expertise in this field, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South is also demonstrating a burgeoning expertise. I recognise that I am very much the new guy on the block.
I will address all the issues that have been raised today and talk a little further about the regulations, as the Committee properly demands. Where there is a demand for both heat and electricity, combined heat and power offers the most energy-efficient use of fuel, with the potential to deliver savings of up to 30%. The renewable heat incentive offers support for the deployment of CHP plant, including that using solid biomass fuel, recognising the role that that technology can play in decarbonising heating and power production. The Government introduced a dedicated biomass combined heat and power tariff into the non-domestic RHI scheme in May 2014. That tariff is approximately double the tariff for large biomass heat-only plants. The biomass combined heat and power tariff is 4.22p per kilowatt-hour, compared with the large biomass heat-only tariff of 2.05p per kilowatt-hour.
The higher support tariff offered to biomass combined heat and power plant, when compared with biomass boilers producing only heat, reflects the higher capital costs generally faced by these plants and also the benefits that biomass combined heat and power plant can deliver for the efficient use of fuel. Given that the biomass CHP tariff is more than double the large biomass tariff, it is important that CHP plants deliver the efficiency benefits that the tariff exists to incentivise. Recently, my Department became aware of some types of combined heat and power system that could qualify for the higher RHI biomass CHP tariff of 4.22p per kilowatt-hour. Those types could be used for all eligible output despite delivering only a relatively small amount of power, or having relatively low levels of power efficiency—in some cases as low as 1%. Plant with very low power efficiency does not necessarily face significantly higher capital costs, or deliver the comparatively efficient use of biomass that the biomass CHP plant tariff is design to incentivise. That is part of the answer to the question that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test raised—there are higher capital costs associated with such plant, as well public benefit from the combined heat and power.
Dr Whitehead
Can the Minister fill us in a little more on the distinction between plants that have reduced overall efficiency as a result of their design, which he has mentioned, and those that do not have that reduced efficiency but have a differential deployment of electricity and heat production? If he makes that distinction, would not a better route have been to target the less efficient plants specifically, rather than catch all plants that vary in their output, as the regulations do?
Jesse Norman
Of course, in retrospect there are many ways in which the system could have been designed. However, the system is well established, in ways that I will describe, and it is important to recognise that the regulations are designed to incentivise combined heat and power. A plant that overwhelmingly provides heat and produces very small amounts of power may not require the same capital costs as another plant, and it may not discharge the purpose for which the combined heat and power tariff is intended, let alone the much higher rate. I think that speaks for itself. The point is that plants with low efficiencies do not necessarily face capital costs.
Not targeting the group that was intended to be included in the original proposals for the tariff represented a potential risk of significant overcompensation, and therefore a risk to the value for money of the RHI scheme, particularly if a large number of plants such as I have described were to come forward. The regulations took action to address that issue, adding a new requirement, as the hon. Gentleman described, for biomass combined heat and power plants to achieve a minimum power efficiency of 20% to qualify for the higher tariff for all their eligible heat use. That change safeguards the value for money of spending through the scheme and protects the interests of the taxpayer.
The Government carried out a consultation on reforms of the RHI schemes in March. That consultation asked whether any types of CHP plant would be overcompensated by the current tariff arrangements, and the responses supported action to ensure that heat incentive support is focused on installations offering value for money.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there was no impact assessment. The answer is relatively straightforward: regulatory impact assessments are produced in cases where a policy imposes regulatory burden on business. Their purpose is to assess the impact of a change—that is why they are called impact assessments. The renewable heat incentive, by contrast, is a voluntary subsidy scheme. The impact on industrial, commercial, public sector and not-for-profit organisations applies only if they are owners of eligible renewable heat installations and choose of their own account to apply for the RHI.
Dr Whitehead
Which was the case for the poultry plants that the Government had previously encouraged to apply for RHI, which were assured by the Department that their arrangements were perfectly satisfactory for that purpose but found out subsequently that they were not. That appears, to go by the Minister’s own words, to be within the definition of something that should have been the subject of an impact assessment.
Jesse Norman
The RHI is a voluntary scheme for those who qualify for it and choose to apply for it. It is not imposed on business. The point about an impact assessment is when the Government use their sovereign power to burden business. In this case, we are not doing that; we may be changing the terms of the tariff arrangements, but we are not burdening business.
A decision was taken at that time not to carry out a further consultation on the specifics of the change. That was due to the significant financial risk to taxpayers’ money that could have been involved. It was judged that further consultation would raise awareness of how the regulations could be exploited to enable high returns. That would increase the risk that more plants of that type would apply to the RHI before a change could be made.
It is true that CHP projects can have quite a long delivery period—a point raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Even so, there was a substantial risk of a potential rush of applications in the three weeks between the publication of the regulatory change and its coming into force. During that period, the Department saw 11 new biomass CHP applications come to the RHI for support. Although that may not sound like many, it was more full biomass CHP applications than have been received since the renewable heat incentive started in late 2011. The issue was live and serious, and posed a genuine threat to value for money. In some cases, mechanisms were rising in the market that enabled non-qualified heat plant to qualify for the higher combined tariff, without necessarily any further significant capital investment being made.
Following the introduction of the regulations, my Department indicated that it was happy to listen to the views of stakeholders who felt they might have been affected by the change. It received information from individual projects, as well as from trade associations, about the impact of the change on potential biomass CHP applications to the renewable heat incentive. Having examined that information, the Government still hold to the point that the higher biomass CHP tariff is in place in recognition of the higher capital costs and the additional efficiency benefits, which biomass CHP—including power—can deliver, compared with the separate generation of power and heat.
It is right that the higher biomass combined heat and power tariff is available to those installations with higher capital costs that deliver additional efficiency benefits and value for money for the taxpayer. It is also reasonable to limit additional payments to installations that do not deliver those additional benefits.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South spoke about goalposts moving. Government policy plays an important role in this fast-moving, technologically-enabled area, so it can occasionally be necessary, in the taxpayer’s interest, to accommodate changing circumstances. The Department remains concerned about the value for money of giving the full biomass CHP tariff to projects with very low power efficiencies. Some projects have power efficiencies as low as 1%, which would deliver low efficiency gains even against separate heat and power generation.
However, we very much recognise the impact of the change on a number of companies with projects under development, in particular smaller biomass CHP plants that may be delivering higher power efficiencies but are still below 20%. Some businesses have invested in various types of CHP projects in good faith. If the hon. Gentleman has specific evidence of misleading information, he is welcome to write to me; I would be interested to see it. The Department has always had a very close relationship with the Scottish Government and I would be very surprised if there were any genuinely misleading information, but I would be happy to look at any evidence.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
The incomplete information that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South referred to was the assertion from the Government that there were two applications with Ofgem, which did not include the number of companies within the 18-month pipeline that needed certainty about their business investment. We did not get the full picture. Had we had the full picture about the 18-month lead-in time, we could perhaps have made a more accurate decision.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful for that clarification and am happy to look at the facts of the case. I make a wider point that relations between the two Governments on this issue have traditionally been very close.
As I said, we recognise the impact of the change on companies that have invested in projects under development in good faith and therefore the Government will introduce amending legislation to the House, as soon as is practicable, to reduce the 20% power threshold to 10% for a transitional period, to be applied to all plant that has qualified for the scheme since 1 August 2016.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I agree very much that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that subsidy is in the taxpayers’ interest, and they are right to insist on a certain level of efficiency. I welcome the change that the Minister has just announced, but the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report on investor confidence, already mentioned once, emphasised that it is important that we move away from any sort of retrospective changes. Now that energy policy is within business policy, can the Minister reassure us that this is a new beginning for energy policy?
Jesse Norman
I absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I simply direct him to the recent announcements on Hinkley, on offshore wind and on the contracts for difference that will shortly be coming forward. Funding for the renewable heat incentive is due to rise from £430 million in 2015-16 to £1.15 billion in 2020-21. Those are hardly the signs of a Government who do not take these issues seriously or are unwilling to make plans on the lengths of time suitable for investment or licence.
I want to pick up the point, en passant, raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West. He is a classical liberal and made a wonderful intervention on the importance of avoiding subsidies. I remind him that any classic liberal of a modern slant would recognise two things: first, that markets can perform not very effectively or efficiently—in some cases in the environment area, pollution is a classic externality generated by market behaviour—and secondly, that markets are instruments of public policy, so it is perfectly proper for a Government on behalf of the public interest more generally to seek to blend objectives in how they treat markets.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I would argue that markets are marginally more efficient than Governments in that respect. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind as we move forward to an industrial strategy. Traditionally, that is something that Governments have not done well —so the less we expect of them, the better.
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend makes a wider point, and I enjoy the move to head off the Government. Two things: first, whether markets perform more effectively than Government depends on the question we are seeking to answer. I certainly do not accept the claim that they are always more effective. [Interruption.] I am afraid I cannot hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen South chuntering from a sedentary position. He is welcome to make the point in an intervention, if he wishes.
The second point to my right hon. Friend is that although in some cases industrial strategy has been done badly, in others it has been done rather effectively. Parts of Scandinavia have seen effective industrial policy, although I am not suggesting for a second that the industrial strategy that this country develops will necessarily model that. I am sure it will take the best of all thinking on this topic. It is perfectly proper for Government to seek to decarbonise industry, given that industry has an intrinsic market-driven tendency to burden the environment with costs that it need not meet itself through what economists call “externalities”.
Dr Whitehead
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again on this issue of the announcement he just made on the grace period or dampening period, perhaps, that he is envisaging. I recall him saying that schemes that applied after 1 August for an unspecified period—he has not specified a period—would be eligible for the higher rate if they were more than 10% efficient so far as electricity production was concerned. Is that the situation? I have two questions on that. First, what is the period? Secondly, why is it from 1 August onwards? That makes no difference to the schemes that were previously under way and now find themselves in difficulty as a result of the changes.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. In my enthusiasm to oblige the Committee, I took a series of interventions before I could finish the point I was making, so allow me to do so now. The enabling legislation will reduce the 20% power threshold to 10% for a transition period. That will apply to all plant that has qualified for the scheme since 1 August 2016. The intention is that that threshold will revert to 20% after 31 March 2017. That is the period he asked about. With something of this kind, a date has to be struck at some point, and that is the date the Department has settled on. As I said, it allows for a significant degree of recognition of concerns that have been raised by those affected.
Indeed, based on the information we have received, the change should allow the vast majority of existing projects to gain RHI accreditation under the lower 10% power efficiency provision. May I just add one other point? It is described as a threshold, but of course it is pro rata, so those running up to that threshold will be enabled to take value from the higher rate for whatever percentage they have up to the threshold. It is not a cliff edge.
It is important to note that, as before, the 10% power efficiency provision, far from being a cut-off, will operate, as I have mentioned, on an incremental basis. So projects with a power efficiency near 10% will get more heat paid at the higher biomass CHP tariff than those with lower power efficiency.
We recognise that this revised approach will not remove all the impacts of the change from all projects, but we feel it achieves the right balance between delivering value for money and ensuring the efficiency benefits that CHP is supposed to deliver, and making sure that those benefits are indeed delivered, while also reducing the impact on projects that are under way. In particular, it reduces the impact on those projects that aim to deliver higher power efficiencies rather than lower ones.
I think I have addressed all the questions that have been put, so I will leave it there.
Dr Whitehead
I find myself in a bit of a difficult position. On the one hand, I really want to welcome the change in position that the Department has apparently undertaken—I say “apparently undertaken”; I would like to see the small print—in respect of the grace period being suggested and the different level of power efficiency being incorporated into that. Nevertheless, I have to say that at first sight it does not appear to satisfy the concerns of those plants that properly undertook a development process on the assumption that the RHI higher remuneration would be available to them, having applied before 1 August 2016, and that find they cannot complete their operations.
However, I want to emphasise our continued concern not about that concession but about the basis on which the whole thing was undertaken in the first place. The idea of having no consultation and no impact assessment, and there being a sudden change, as reflected by hon. Members in the debate this afternoon, is in many ways, frankly, an example of the bad practices—chopping, changing and bringing about sudden changes in the remuneration regime—that have been so deleterious to industry confidence in renewable deployment over the recent period. As it stands, this change looks like another example of that and, frankly, unless we have a proper reassessment in addition to the concession the Government have made, which I welcome, I will still think this proposal is very inadequate.
For that reason, I seek to divide the Committee this afternoon.
Question put.
Petition
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
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
Almshouses
(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
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered alms houses and their role in housing policy.
I acknowledge at the outset the assistance I received from Charlie Corlett, who interned in my office over the summer, in preparing my contribution to this important debate.
For the past four years, I have served on the housing and care committee of my city livery company, the Merchant Taylors; we take responsibility for the 130 or so almshouses that the livery company owns and manages in Lewisham and Lee in south-east London. At a time when public policy urgently demands greater housing availability, we should not forget one of the more traditional social housing classes. The almshouse sector thrives and should properly be regarded as having an important part to play in the ongoing housing ecosystem of the 21st century.
Almshouses are the oldest form of social housing. They collectively house some 35,000 of our fellow citizens in dwellings managed by roughly 1,650 charities. The tradition of almshouses began as far back as the 10th century, during the reign of King Athelstan; the oldest still in existence, the Hospital of St Cross in Winchester, was founded between 1133 and 1136. They were originally devised as places of residence for the poor and elderly, and some almshouse charities now provide care for other groups such as ex-armed forces personnel and those with limited financial means. In many rural areas in the UK, almshouses are the only source of housing for those in need and therefore play an important role in the social housing landscape.
With fewer new homes being built, house prices still increasing and an ever ageing population, the need for almshouses has never been greater. I also think that a number of philanthropists would regard an investment in almshouses as an appropriate way of making a contribution in the longer term, particularly in the light of the safeguards that I will come on to later in my speech. I hope that we can raise the profile of almshouses through the all-party group on almshouses, through debates such as this one and through sensitive Government policy, and I will come on to a couple of issues that I hope the Minister will address.
Let me give some background. Almshouses play an important role in providing not only dwellings for the vulnerable or elderly but an additional level of care that cannot be found in other forms of social housing. Most of the charities that run almshouses still provide wardens, who have been shown to be pivotal in the reduction of the social isolation that is all too prevalent among elderly people. It is also especially important that residents have someone to call if they are in need. That very personal relationship between trustees and residents is expressed strongly by the Almshouse Association, a support charity representing 95% of all almshouse charities in the UK. Prince Charles, a patron of the association, has observed that there is a “unique bond” between trustee and beneficiary, and that many trustees are willing to give something substantial back to their community because they grew up nearby. There are also communal areas in many schemes where the tenants can socialise.
With four fifths of almshouse charities in the UK running fewer than 20 dwellings, each charity can provide a higher standard of care for its residents. Almshouses, especially for the elderly, strike the right balance between the required level of care and the dignity and independence that could be ignored in an alternative form of accommodation. As the broadcaster David Dimbleby, who is vice-patron of the Almshouse Association, puts it:
“Almshouses are communities of people choosing to live together for their mutual comfort and support. Where old people’s homes can often have an air of despair, of the elderly being abandoned by their families, almshouses speak of optimism and confidence in old age.”
In general, almshouses have played an important role in creating a stable environment for people who need an intermediate option between common social housing and care homes.
The Almshouse Association does a significant amount of work on the preservation of its ancient buildings. My experience with the Merchant Taylors is of a mix of housing: we have some very modern new build on a particular site in Lewisham, but literally a stone’s throw away there is one of our most popular listed buildings, which goes back to the 1820s, and which the company had at a time when that part of what was then Kent, and is now a bustling inner-London borough, was made up of open country.
In an appeal made on the Almshouse Association’s 65th anniversary, its chairman Simon Pott condensed its motives into three simple points:
“supporting member charities in providing good quality housing for those in need, promoting the welfare and independence of residents and preserving the historic tradition of almshouses for the enjoyment of future generations.”
Almshouses also make a significant contribution to our national heritage: 35% of their buildings are listed. Simon Pott states that the almshouse movement today is “vibrant” and “progressive”, and I vouch for that. The durability of these institutions throughout the past millennium and the critical role they play today are reason enough to justify the support that they rightly receive.
I was delighted to launch the all-party group on almshouses last month with the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who apologises for not being able to come down from west Yorkshire today because of the important by-election in her neighbouring constituency of Batley and Spen tomorrow, but who is here in spirit. I know she supports, on a cross-party basis, much of what I am saying today. In setting up the all-party group, we wanted to draw attention to almshouses as a vital component of our housing sector, and to highlight some of the legislative challenges that they face in the 21st century, a number of which I shall draw to the Minister’s attention today.
A portion of almshouse charities are not registered social landlords—RSLs—and that can create specific challenges in relation to part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 and the national planning policy framework. The Act allows local authorities to designate geographical zones that feature particular types of deprivation, within which providers of residential accommodation can be required to hold a licence for each dwelling that they own or manage. Local authorities can charge a fee for such licences. The rationale for that policy is to identify rogue private landlords and clamp down on some of their worst practices.
Unfortunately, unless almshouse charities are RSLs, they can be inadvertently caught out by that legislation. It would be unfortunate for them to be regarded as being risky, as if they were rogue landlords. Consequently, such charities, many of which have only a handful of properties under their auspices, can be forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds for licences for the homes they provide, even though they manifestly do not exhibit the characteristics of rogue private landlords. They cannot pass on the costs of the licence to residents, since that would cause financial hardship and would probably be forbidden under charity law.
The Almshouse Association made a submission to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s consultation on houses in multiple occupation in December 2015. It asked for a statutory instrument to exempt almshouses from the legislation, but I understand that to date there has been no progress on that. Can the Minister confirm that we will get that legislation in place as soon as possible?
Almshouses have been caused difficulties by some local authorities’ interpretation of what constitutes affordable housing under the national planning policy framework. In cases where almshouses are not formally registered as providers of social housing, a number of councils have required almshouse charities to meet section 106 obligations, when the charities themselves have been developing new almshouse dwellings. That approach is clearly paradoxical, since the dwellings fit the statutory definition of social housing in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The Almshouse Association made a detailed submission to a DCLG consultation in February, but as I understand it, a formal and final response is still awaited.
On almshouse charities that are RSLs, there is concern about the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, which obliges rent for tenants to be cut by 1% per year for four years. Under the Act, “tenant” was understandably defined in a way that included almshouse residents, but the definition of “rent” included the modest contribution that residents are asked to make to maintenance costs. In that instance, the Government were responsive to the concerns of the Almshouse Association and exempted RSL almshouses from the obligation for at least a year. The association is anxious to ensure that that correct exemption is made permanent.
The Minister will be aware of the proposal to cap housing benefit at local housing allowance rates for residents of registered social landlords. That will potentially have a significant—indeed, devastating—impact on the finances of some almshouse RSLs, as charity law prevents them from charging a weekly maintenance contribution, which would put residents in financial hardship. In recent years, many almshouse charities have built high-specification accommodation for pensioners under the affordable homes programme, which assumes that charities will be able to charge residents up to 80% of the local market rent. The charities committed to the affordable homes programme on the assumption that a weekly maintenance contribution at that level would be covered by housing benefit. When that concern was raised with the Government, a short-term exception was made once again, but understandably, almshouse RSLs would like to see the arrangement made permanent and explicit.
Given the historical roots of so many almshouses, it goes without saying that most almshouse charities were founded long before the Equality Act 2010 came to pass. However, a significant number of almshouses have constitutions that, alongside the basic criterion of need, restrict the beneficiary class, perhaps by age or gender, or sometimes by religious belief. In order to make such restrictions lawful, the charity must, of course, satisfy a plethora of Government bodies that the restriction is a proportionate means of satisfying an existing housing need—something that such bodies can understandably be a little jumpy about endorsing. The Almshouse Association recommends that the issue be overcome through an amendment to the 2010 Act effectively stating that, in the context of their charitable rules, almshouses are deemed to meet the test.
All that only goes to highlight a somewhat wider problem, whereby housing legislation and the associated regulation increasingly conflicts with charity law, making it difficult for trustees to be absolutely sure that they have achieved full compliance. That goes well beyond the issue of almshouses. New charitable legislation has come into being, but ever more legislation does not, of course, mean that the loopholes are being closed, and sometimes new problems arise.
Almshouses are a vital contribution to the social housing landscape in the UK, providing care and decent living standards—really, they are rather better than decent; in large numbers of cases, they provide superior living standards—for vulnerable groups of people in all corners of our nation. I trust that the Minister will take up some of the issues that I have raised. I made sure he was aware in advance of what I wanted to say, so hopefully he will provide satisfaction on some of the points. On others, though, he may have to go back to his Department. I hope that, alongside the establishment of the new all-party group, my speech will mark a fresh chapter in Parliament’s understanding of the almshouse movement and, beyond that, ensure that it will thrive for many centuries to come.
Moreover, as I have said, I hope that more knowledge of almshouses will inspire a new generation of philanthropists to make their contribution, in this century, to alleviating the problems of housing shortage, especially, but not exclusively, for the less well-off in our communities. We have to recognise that the housing crisis—I shall use that term, for want of a better one, although I know that it is, to a certain extent, subject to political dispute—means that we have to use every tool in our toolbox. Our landscape will not be covered with almshouses tomorrow —we will not go from 35,000 to 350,000 overnight—but they are part and parcel of that effort.
Philanthropists should feel that, through almshouses, they can make a longer-term contribution to solving the genuine problem we have with housing shortage. They can last through many generations to come. It would be a wonderful development if modern almshouses were to sprout up in villages, towns and cities in the decades ahead. I hope that this debate will help to start the process of making sure that we, as opinion formers and policy makers, can make the almshouse movement strong for this century and beyond.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on setting out the case so clearly for us all. He made sure that the issues that are specific and perhaps peculiar to almshouses are on the record. I am not aware of any almshouse charities in Northern Ireland, but the issues the right hon. Gentleman discussed are important. It is also important to put on the record our need for such organisations to deliver throughout society, which they very clearly do and must continue to do. I thank those who prepared the background information on this debate. It is very detailed and helpful and will help with my contribution. I shall make only a brief speech, but it is important that we put on the record the importance of almshouses and of charity.
Over the years, people with compassion have stepped in with charity when Governments have perhaps been unable to help. There are around 160,000 general charities in the UK. According to the “UK Civil Society Almanac 2012”, charities have a combined income of some £37 billion. That is money raised from charitable giving, charity shops and fundraising events, and by volunteers actively trying to make people’s lives better. That is the core issue of this debate, as has been made clear. Charities provide for and help people when they are abandoned by others—such help has to be encouraged at this time.
Almshouses are charitable organisations, some of which are also registered social landlords, and mainly specialise in housing for the elderly. They specifically set out to help those who are vulnerable and in need of help and care that they cannot get or are not getting through the welfare system. There is a specific role for the work that almshouses and charitable organisations do for the people they target and on whom their help is focused.
Of the 1,700 almshouse charities throughout the country, more than 30% occupy listed buildings, and many have celebrated anniversaries of over 400 years. Such anniversaries are important to record and acknowledge. Another feature of their rich heritage is that many almshouses lie in the heart of towns and villages, which ensures that they remain closely integrated in the local community. It is important to recognise the added benefit of their location, which ensures that residents are close to shops and services. In other words, they are in the right places and have the right focus in local communities.
The majority of today’s almshouse residents will be of retirement age and of limited financial means, and will have lived in the vicinity of an almshouse charity. Residents pay a weekly maintenance contribution, which is similar to rent but different in law, and less than a commercial rate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on the specific circumstances of almshouse residents.
Almshouses make a real difference to the quality of the lives of their patrons. The House must recognise that and make the appropriate allowances. They help to fill a gap, which is why I support the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman and others on the Government’s intention to cap housing benefit entitlement for residents at local housing allowance rates and the requirement to reduce rent levels by 1% each year for four years from April 2016.
I am given to understand that, as a general rule, the rents charged for supported housing are higher than the rents charged on other social housing units. Thus the impact of capping housing benefit entitlement for residents of supported housing has caused particular concern, which is the reason for the debate. The whole point of these charities is to provide the additional care and support that is needed, and capping housing benefit in this way will make things even less affordable for those who need a little help to feel a little safer in their community, or even to stay in the community in the specific place where they are living.
About 17% of older people are in contact with their family, friends and neighbours less than once a week and 11% are in contact with them less than once a month. These figures underline the need for consideration —perhaps special consideration—of almshouses. Two fifths of older people say that television is their main company; for some older people, it is their only company. When there are so few community hubs, it affects the quality of life of almshouse residents, so almshouses should be protected.
It is a well-known fact that residential care is an expensive business. It is my belief that this cap will be a false economy, as it may leave some people feeling that they have no other option than to go into a home. For those who do not have a large pension, which will include those who benefit from almshouses, the cost of their going into a home will be met by the taxpayer.
With respect, I do not see any great saving in this change. I am sure that the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will say that that is not the case, but in my 31 years of representing the general public in an elected capacity, I have seen too many cases where the refusal to put a care package in place has led to people being put in residential care, at a much greater cost and causing much greater difficulty for those people physically, emotionally and financially. That must be taken into consideration.
I conclude by saying that our elderly people need help and consideration, and I feel that these proposals to cap housing benefit are not necessary or useful in any way, shape or form at this time. Therefore, I fully support my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, if I can call him that, in bringing forward this matter for consideration in this House, and I look to the Minister for a positive response. We have a duty in this House to help those who need help, and legislatively we can help them. Let us hope we can do that as a result of this debate.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
I do not think that we have any other speakers from the Floor, so we will move to the wind-ups.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Gillan.
I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) for securing this interesting and informed debate. While I have always taken an interest in housing issues in general throughout my political career—I started as a councillor in West Lothian many years ago—and in supported accommodation in particular, I must admit that prior to this debate being announced I was unaware of almshouses. I suspect that that will not be uncommon among the general public and indeed among other MPs.
My research shows that there appear to be only two almshouses charities in Scotland: the John Menzies (Southern) Limited Employees’ Benevolent Fund, which is based in Edinburgh; and the Ellen Carter Almshouses charity, which is based in Hawick. Both of them are outwith my area, but I will do more research to find out about them after this debate.
As was shown by the examples given by other right hon. and hon. Members during the debate, almshouses clearly play a valuable role. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, they give us compassion and charity, which are two key aspects that should not be outwith the housing market at all; indeed, they are the basis for providing homes for people.
The Scottish National party is pleased that the UK Government have abandoned plans to reduce the housing benefit for vulnerable people who stay in supported accommodation, which would obviously include almshouses and women’s aid refuges, which is another form of accommodation that is particularly important to me.
Local housing allowance rates do not consider the additional cost to refuge providers or other providers of supported accommodation of leasing accommodation from social landlords, nor the associated service charge costs. If they had not received the existing level of housing benefit to cover their costs, refuges may have been forced to close.
It is estimated that 62% of housing association tenants in Scotland rely on housing benefit to help them to pay their rent, which highlights just how significant housing benefit is. I am delighted that the cuts from the application of LHA rates to supported accommodation over the 2016-17 to 2019-20 period will not be made. I congratulate the Government on taking that stance. Instead, we are told by the UK Government that from 2019-20 onwards they will introduce in relation to England
“a new funding model which will ensure that the sector continues to be funded at current levels”.
I welcome that because obviously it will result in additional funding being given to the Scottish Government to support the supported accommodation sector.
In the last Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government exceeded their target of building 30,000 affordable homes by completing 33,490 affordable homes, with 22,523 of those completions being of social rented homes. Building more homes has been made a national infrastructure priority by the SNP Government. Over the course of the next Scottish Parliament, the SNP Government will build 50,000 new affordable homes, 35,000 of which we have pledged to make social rented homes. Ensuring that everyone in Scotland has access to good-quality housing is a vital part of the Scottish Government’s drive to ensure economic growth, promote social justice, strengthen communities and tackle inequality.
The Scottish Government have a number of innovative schemes for funding and building more of these homes. So far, we are the only UK Administration to invest in charitable bonds—more than £40 million has been invested in charitable bonds, providing the development finance for 581 affordable homes and generating more than £9 million for charities. I wonder whether that is an example of an approach to housing funding that could perhaps benefit almshouses throughout the wider UK and indeed throughout Scotland, because, as I have said, we have only two almshouses charities at the moment.
The Local Affordable Rented Housing Trust is another scheme. It is helping to provide 1,000 affordable homes across Scotland. Launched in October last year, it was set up to provide long-term, mid-market rented housing across the country. Overall funding for the LAR will be more than £100 million, with a loan of £55 million from the Scottish Government being matched by private investors. We also have the National Housing Trust initiative, which was launched in 2010. It was the first Government guarantee-backed housing programme in the UK.
As well as building more homes, which is absolutely fundamental, the right to buy was abolished for all social housing tenants in Scotland by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014. That will preserve housing stock for the future and means that social landlords will receive a steady rental income. It also allows landlords to issue short secure Scottish tenancies to address antisocial behaviour and help homeowners in genuine need.
In conclusion, while almshouses clearly have a significant role within the housing policy model, in the Scottish context they are currently relatively minor. However, there is definitely more that can be done. More knowledge of almshouses would be useful—I would certainly be interested in joining the all-party group on almshouses—because it is an interesting approach. The comment was made that we can have more modern almshouses. That could fit in with different funding models and provide a valuable social context.
I thank the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing this debate and I am delighted to have been able to take part.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Gillan, in my first debate on the Front Bench.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on securing this debate and thank him for the courtesy of sharing with me in advance what he was going to cover. This is not the first time that he and I have spoken about housing issues in London in this Chamber, even in the short time I have been in Parliament. I also thank the Almshouses Association for its briefing for this debate and welcome the formation of the all-party group on almshouses, under the co-chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch).
As the right hon. Gentleman described so eloquently, almshouses have been around for centuries—long before the advent of council and housing association housing—and, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) clearly described, they continue to play a valuable role in the provision of housing in this country. They particularly benefit people such as pensioners and people with disabilities, those on low incomes, and occasionally members of other specific groups, such as ex-services personnel. In my constituency we have several almshouses. The Isleworth and Hounslow Charity manages 80 units, spread over six sites, for couples and single people. It is an amalgamation of a number of small almshouses and distributive charities. The oldest, Ingrams, was endowed in 1664; the newest, Tolson House, which is part-funded by the Homes and Communities Agency, was opened in 2012.
One of the strengths of almshouses is their local connection. They often have local trustees and many provide on-site staff, a social focus and a support element. In addition to the human side of providing homes, the older almshouse charities preserve an important part of our nation’s built heritage. So while almshouses may be historic, they are very much alive and vibrant and play an important role in the mixed housing economy in our communities, particularly for those who cannot afford to buy their own homes.
Before I address the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I want to set the place of almshouses within the wider context of all supported and social rent housing. We have seen six years of failure, leading to the greatest housing crisis this country has seen for many decades. Housebuilding is at the lowest level under any Prime Minister since 1923. Rough sleeping has doubled. Private rents have risen faster than incomes. The number of new Government-funded social rented homes has fallen by an astonishing 98% since 2010, and housing benefit has risen by more than £4 billion a year in cash terms despite a series of punitive cuts. The pressures on all providers of supported and social rent housing could not be more difficult, and almshouses have not been spared.
Having set the scene, I would now like to turn to each of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. First, on the issue of licensing, he seeks a statutory instrument to exempt almshouses from the relevant legislation. Local authorities have discretion over fees and the licensing regime, which is there to catch rogue private landlords. I am sure that almshouses are able to work with their local authority to ensure that the licensing regime does not bring them into the ambit of something meant for a completely different purpose. However, I understand that there are some set categories for exemptions that almshouses have to follow and that presumably do not include non-registered almshouses. That is the reason for the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expressed. If he is suggesting that local authorities should have more discretion than at present to amend who is covered by the licensing regime, we would have some sympathy with that.
Secondly, on the national planning policy framework and planning obligations, the right hon. Gentleman says that some local authorities have interpreted non-registered almshouses as essentially being private developers that are therefore required to carry out section 106 obligations to provide affordable housing when that is essentially what their core business is anyway. It could and indeed should be a matter for local negotiation. Section 106 agreements are locally negotiated and agreed. Having spent some years as the chair of my local authority’s planning committee and many years as a planning committee member, I am well acquainted with the powers of the planning system and the ability to have local discretion according to local circumstances and need. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that some clarity and guidance on this area from the Department would perhaps be helpful to almshouses and planning authorities. We need to deliver much needed affordable housing more urgently. We share the belief of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) in the importance of delivering many more good quality, truly affordable homes, and soon.
Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster raised concerns from almshouses that the rent cut for social rent housing might impact on almshouses once the first-year exemption is over. Opposition Members regret that the arbitrary rent cut has potentially compromised the building of new affordable homes and damaged the relationship between providers and the Government. It has led to plans for the development of new affordable housing being scaled back at a time when there have been devastating cuts in social housing investment since 2010.
Finally, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), has led opposition to the cuts to the local housing allowance for supported housing since last December. It is dangerous and damaging to cap housing support for some of the most vulnerable people and to uprate it by a measure of inflation—the consumer prices index—that explicitly excludes housing costs. The National Almshouses Association is not alone in expressing concern about the Government’s plans to introduce a cap on the amount of rent that housing benefit will cover. It will mean that housing benefit for social sector tenants cannot be higher than the local housing allowance rate for private rent tenants.
The measure was due to apply to tenancies signed after 1 April 2016 and to come into force from 1 April 2018 onwards for everyone else. However, in March, following pressure from the shadow Front-Bench team, the Government announced a one-year exemption for tenants of supported housing. In July, my shadow Front-Bench colleagues secured an Opposition day debate in which they called on the Government to fully exempt supported housing from their cuts to housing benefit and to consult with supported housing providers to identify ways in which all vulnerable people who need supported housing can access it.
In September, immediately before the conference recess, the Government announced through a written statement that they would be deferring the application of LHA rates to social rents for supported housing further, until 2019-20. However, the Government will be going ahead with the cut to supported housing providers from next April. The written statement raised more questions than it answered. The policy is delayed, but the cuts will go ahead. There is no figure on the new funding pledged, yet the Budget scored the so-called savings at £990 million. Furthermore, Government announcements on the LHA cut have stalled the development of many new supported housing schemes.
I am concerned that the Government decision to delay detailing their cuts to supported housing will leave tens of thousands of the most vulnerable people without the certainty they need to live their lives. The written statement lacked important details on the top-up funding that will be devolved to local authorities and on the new funding arrangements. The continuous delays in outlining a complete package of support for almshouses and, indeed, the whole supported housing sector are unacceptable. It is vital that supported housing is fully exempt from these cuts. Otherwise, as the hon. Member for Strangford has so clearly explained, we risk pushing more pensioners into the far more costly care system.
In conclusion, almshouses, along with all providers of social and affordable housing, deserve to be treated by this Government with the same degree of respect as they afford their residents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I welcome the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) to the Opposition Front Bench. I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on securing this important debate on almshouses. He has a great passion for housing issues, particularly in relation to London. I welcome the opportunity to highlight the important role that almshouses have played for many years and, as we have heard, centuries. They continue to play that role in providing affordable housing for communities across the country.
The creation of the new all-party group on almshouses rightly reflects the importance of these organisations, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new role as co-chair of the all-party group. I understand it had its inaugural meeting on 14 September. The group has a remit to promote the issues affecting almshouse charities and their continuance, development and strengthening throughout the UK. This debate is an excellent start to the all-party group’s work, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and commend him on his efforts on behalf of the wider almshouse movement.
The tremendous dedication and work of the trustees and other volunteers who run and maintain these important organisations are fine examples of community spirit and localism that directly impacts the lives of residents. As a former leader of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, I am aware and proud of the huge contribution that the Nicholas Chamberlaine Trusts’ almshouses have made to Bedworth in the neighbouring constituency of North Warwickshire since 1840. The almshouses were designed by the notable Victorian architect Thomas Larkins Walker to house the poor of the town. The charity was established in 1715 as part of a bequest by Nicholas Chamberlaine, who was the rector of Bedworth for 51 years. With 28 homes still housing those in need, it is clear that this almshouse trust and others across the country continue to play a most valuable role in supporting vulnerable residents, particularly in many rural areas, as my right hon. Friend detailed. As he noted, almshouses also make a critical contribution to our national heritage by maintaining many listed, important and fine buildings that might otherwise be neglected.
On the points made by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members about the legislation affecting almshouses, the Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised by almshouses that are registered providers of social housing about the potential impact of requiring them to implement the 1% per annum social rent reduction set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. This important measure reduces housing benefit costs in the social rented sector in England, which had increased by 25% over the previous decade. However, we recognised that there were particular circumstances that could make it more challenging for almshouses to absorb this reduction. We therefore announced last month that the one-year exemption that had previously been granted would be extended for the full four years of the social rent reduction. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that regulations to that effect will be in place shortly.
We also recognised that the application of the local housing allowance rate might have a bigger impact on almshouses and other specific types of housing. We announced last month that we will extend the deferral until 2019-20 while we consider whether any additional arrangements will be necessary for this group, alongside the new funding model for supported housing that will then be introduced. These decisions have been warmly welcomed by the Almshouse Association.
On the LHA rates, I can reassure the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who may have seen our statement that was laid before the House, that our solution for supported housing includes a commitment to provide the same quantum of funding as at present, which is an extremely important point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster also raised the issue of selective licensing. Licensing is intended to apply to most private landlords operating in a particular area, including registered charities. It is intended to raise standards in the private sector and provide a level playing field between landlords. Around 20% of almshouses are registered providers of social housing and, as my right hon. Friend said, are therefore exempt from licensing since they are subject to other regulatory controls. The remainder, although almost exclusively registered charities, are private landlords. The Government are not convinced that there is a compelling case for those providers to be treated differently from other private landlords operating in areas that are subject to selective licensing.
I am grateful for the Almshouse Association’s response to our consultation paper on extending the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, in which they raised particular concerns about licence fees payable under selective licensing schemes. We published our response to the consultation yesterday. Local housing authorities can charge fees to cover their costs in administering a selective licensing scheme. The Government do not regulate the fees that are charged. However, it is important to recognise that the fees must be reasonable and transparent, and, in particular, should cover only the cost of running the scheme; they should not raise additional revenue above and beyond that.
Mark Field
My concern is that those fees are a pretty strong disincentive for new or existing almshouse providers to expand in areas—often the most vulnerable areas—where there is a more acute need for social housing. Everyone wants to ensure that rogue landlords are properly brought to book, but the licensing fees are substantial. The sorts of almshouse charities that we are talking about may have only a dozen or so properties under their auspices. Given that it is meant to be a small number of areas that have licensing arrangements, almshouse charities might think twice about continuing to undertake their work in areas of acute social need. That would be a regrettable and unintended consequence of what is being proposed.
Mr Jones
My right hon. Friend is probably aware of a Government White Paper on housing, which I will talk about in more detail in a moment, that will be published shortly. I am sure that he will feed his further concerns into the work that the Government are conducting.
Exempting almshouses from fees and offering substantial discounts is within local authorities’ discretionary powers. As the legislation stands, providers can speak to their local authorities about licensing fees and whether the local authority is willing to give an exemption or a discount. Before a local authority introduces a licensing scheme, the legislation requires them to take reasonable steps to consult organisations that are likely to be affected by the designation, and they must consider any representations made in accordance with the consultation. I would encourage almshouses and other private landlords to put their case to local authorities at that stage.
Mark Field
All of us would like local authorities to have as much discretion as possible, but we have to be realistic when it comes to the charging of fees. Given the financial constraints that all local authorities are under, it is unlikely that a local authority will exercise much discretion when faced with the prospect of losing substantial fees. I am afraid the Minister has not provided as much comfort as I would like, but I take on board his point that we can make full representations as part and parcel of the White Paper process. Almshouses do not have a special status, but they are recognised as an important part of the broader ecosystem, and some of the understandable protections required for tenants and local authorities alike should not necessarily apply, given the historic importance of almshouses, in contrast to the rogue landlords that much of the legislation is designed to try to deal with.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
As we have plenty of time, I am being generous, but I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be short.
Mr Marcus Jones
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has made several points, and he can feed those into the housing White Paper process.
On the national planning policy framework, which was mentioned, there was a consultation last December on changes to the framework, with a view to increasing the supply of housing. Any changes that will be made in the framework will be undertaken through the White Paper process. Again, I encourage my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members to feed into that. The impact and implementation of section 106 agreements will again be looked at in the forthcoming housing White Paper, and I encourage my right hon. Friend to look into that.
I was a little disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth in the wider context of housing, because her party presided over the lowest ever level of house building in 2009. House building has picked up significantly since then. From 1997 to 2010, the stock of affordable homes in this country fell by 420,000. Since 2010, the coalition Government and the current Government have created 293,000 affordable homes. In this Parliament, we are continuing that, with a programme for another 100,000 affordable homes to rent. During the 13 years that they were in power, the Labour Government built fewer council houses than this Government have in the last six and a half years.
Ruth Cadbury
Perhaps the Minister could explain something relating to the net gain or loss of social rented housing since 2010. In my area, the right-to-buy discount is so high that council houses have been sold through right to buy at a faster rate than new social rented housing, both council and housing association, has been built by our local authority. On his comment about the number of council houses built under the last Labour Government, it is true that council house building was low, but housing association new builds were very high. We also delivered the better homes programme, in which a high proportion of council homes were brought up to the decent homes standard—they had been neglected for many years before that.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. I do not want Members to slip into bad habits just because we have a reasonable amount of time.
Mr Marcus Jones
It is quite obvious that the number of affordable homes declined steeply during the period of the last Labour Government. We are trying to address that, as well as the legacy of the biggest financial crash in living memory, which has caused significant challenges in bringing forward new homes. We are now on the right trajectory.
It is clear that in this Chamber we all share the same appreciation, respect and admiration for the almshouse movement and its volunteers. I look forward to continuing to work with that movement and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and his colleagues on the APPG. We recognise the value of almshouses, and the support that they provide, and the crucial work that they do, in many of our communities, and are keen to see that continue.
Mark Field
As the most senior Member in the Chamber at the moment—other than yourself, Mrs Gillan—I apologise if I have led colleagues astray with the bad habit of extremely long interventions. I have made speeches that are shorter than some of the interventions that we have been able to make today. I would not wish the lack of attendance in this debate to give rise to the sense that there is any apathy or dissent about this issue. There is a lot of consensus, which has been seen in most of the contributions.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution about the view from the other side of the Irish sea. On Scotland, I am sorry that there are relatively few almshouses in Scotland. Mischievously, I might wonder whether there was no great tradition of philanthropy in Scotland; more to the point, it may be that, with a different legal system, housing tenure developed in a different way north of the border. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) rightly pointed out, there are some almshouses in Scotland.
I know this is not exactly my party’s policy, but I agree with the SNP view that we need to ensure that increasing amounts of social housing—this would certainly apply to almshouses—should not be subject to right to buy. One way that we will encourage people—philanthropists, as I have said—to put money into the sector and get into it in a big way is if they are assured that the properties will not be subject to right to buy and that those charitable measures will be maintained in perpetuity.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on her debut. I think she will find that this particular debate was rather more consensual than some of the more fractious outings she will get in future in her role. There is some merit in making sure that all parties are aware of speeches in advance, and I would always advise colleagues to do it, particularly in these sorts of Westminster Hall debates, because it enables us to address the issues. I am sure the hon. Lady recognises, as another central London MP, going down Sutton Lane and other parts of her constituency where there are almshouses, that they are very much sought after and remain an important part of her community.
Finally, I thank the Minister. It was very useful to be able to put my speech forward in advance. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for doing her dutiful work as the Parliamentary Private Secretary and making sure the papers got passed on. I have found comfort in much of what the Minister said. There are one or two issues that we will have to look at again, but I hope the work of the APPG and the association will play an important part in ensuring that almshouses are not a forgotten, Cinderella area in the housing White Paper, but are in the mind of the Ministry going forward.
Mrs Gillan, thank you so much for allowing us to speak at length, albeit not at as much length as we thought we were going to. That gives you a quick half hour for coffee as well, which is a perfect solution for a Wednesday morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered alms houses and their role in housing policy.
Glenfield Hospital Children’s Heart Surgery Unit
(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
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Glenfield Hospital’s Children’s Heart Surgery Unit.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. The future of Glenfield’s children’s heart surgery unit is a hugely important issue not only for my constituents and patients in the east midlands but for people across the country—Glenfield currently serves patients from 296 parliamentary constituencies. The Minister will know that 34,000 people have signed an online petition to save the unit, and I understand that many thousands more have signed the paper petition. That shows the strength of local feeling.
Like the hospital, I support NHS England’s desire to achieve the highest possible standards for children’s heart surgery across the country. NHS England’s standards rightly state that it must be able to
“reserve the right not to commission services from a provider that is so significantly at variance from the standards as to cause safety/quality concerns. Such a decision would only be taken following a risk assessment of the costs and benefits of both closure and non-closure.”
However, there is no evidence that Glenfield is at significant variance from the standards—in fact, quite the opposite. According to independent assessments, Glenfield has among the best clinical outcomes in the country, including for mortality rates and readmission rates, which are significantly lower than those in other centres. Clinicians at Glenfield rightly say that it makes no sense to close a centre that is already achieving precisely the good clinical outcomes NHS England wants.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on achieving this debate, which continues the public debate we have been having in the county and the city in respect of the hospital. Does she agree that the hospital and its children’s heart unit not only has a regional and national reputation of the highest order but is a world centre of excellence, and for it to be closed or for any of its services to be decreased would be little short of wanton destruction? I urge her to urge the Minister to take that message firmly back to his Department.
Liz Kendall
I completely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that not only the 57 patients from his constituency who are currently receiving treatment but the thousands of patients who receive ongoing care, including for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which I will come back to, rightly value the high standards at Glenfield. It would be a huge and terrible mistake to close the centre.
In a recent letter to the hospital, NHS England raised concerns that more complex cases are being referred to Birmingham from Glenfield. I take issue with that. I would like the Minister to confirm that, in fact, only four such cases have been referred to Birmingham in the past three years, and that it is a professional obligation to seek second opinions when that is in the best interests of patients. That is enshrined in General Medical Council good practice guidelines and was recommended by the paediatric and congenital services review group in its recommendations in 2003. Few complex cases are referred but, when they are, it is in the best interests of patients. That should not be used as a reason to close the unit.
A second part of the standards that NHS England has set out is ensuring that sustainable numbers of children have surgery in each unit every year. The aim is to have 375 operations per year over the next three years, with 500 a year in the longer run. I want to make this clear: the hospital has told me and NHS England that it is on track for 375 cases this year and that, if it does not quite achieve that, it will not be by significant numbers. It therefore rightly asks: “Why put a centre on track to reach those standards at risk by this proposal?”
On the longer term goal of achieving 500 cases a year, there is an important question. More than 500 children in the east midlands need congenital heart surgery every year but do not all go to Glenfield. NHS England claims that that is due to patient choice. Some patients in Peterborough or Northampton will choose to go to places such as Great Ormond Street, but the claim that all patients in Northampton choose to go to Great Ormond Street while all patients from Peterborough choose to go to Leicester suggests the goals are more about historic referral patterns than about genuine patient choice.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for all the campaigning she is doing on this important issue. I could raise many constituency cases, but I will raise just one. Scarlett from Kirkby was minutes from dying by the time she arrived at Glenfield. Her mum, Zoë, told me that she would not have made it any further than Glenfield. Keeping Glenfield open is a matter of life and death for so many children.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely right. Many patients and their families have told me that they simply would not be alive if they had had to travel much further. If the proposal goes ahead, the east midlands will be the only region in the country without a children’s heart surgery unit. It does not have to be this way, because if we properly manage the number of referrals across the east midlands, there will be enough for Glenfield and other surgery units to keep going. It is a balance between getting the right numbers and having quick access to a centre.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for initiating the debate. May I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero)? My constituents who have contacted me about the hospital live a long way from Leicester—some of them live virtually on the South Yorkshire border, many miles away—and have used the hospital not just for routine surgery but for emergencies. They already have to drive 60 miles to get to Leicester, but if they had to go to Birmingham or Great Ormond Street, it would put lives at risk.
Liz Kendall
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We have to be aware that it is not just about the essential, vital emergency care and surgery when it is a matter of life or death and whether children can reach a centre in time. It is also about ongoing care and support. It is not just that they have one or two operations when they are little; they need care and support right through into adult life.
We must remember that children are part of families, and families have obligations. They have other children they need to get to school and they have work commitments. To throw that up in the air when they have those arrangements and their children need ongoing care and support is denying those patients choice.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job in presenting the case. My young constituent, Jack Phillips, will be celebrating his first birthday later this month thanks to life-saving open heart surgery at Glenfield. His dad, Christopher, wrote to me:
“At such a devastating time having the support of our family who were able to visit from Nottingham regularly while we were in Leicester was vital to us.”
Is that not one of the issues about a centre being within easy reach of other parts of the east midlands?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to think about people’s needs in the round—the need for high-quality surgery; ongoing care and support; and, critically, help for those families for whom this is a terrible, frightening and ongoing experience. Making the east midlands the only place without a heart surgery unit does not make sense.
It does not have to be this way. In its own standards, NHS England says:
“Networks will need to establish systems to ensure that referrals…between centres are managed in such a way as to ensure that each clinician is able to achieve their numbers”.
Its own standards say that people need to work together so that everyone can achieve the best. However, at the moment NHS England is not developing the work. I am a long-standing champion of patient choice, but the current proposals deny choice to patients from across the country who use Glenfield children’s heart surgery unit on an ongoing basis.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. The Glenfield children’s heart unit is vital not only to my constituents but, as she said, to people across the east midlands and beyond. She has alluded to the significant progress that the hospital has made in just the past year in driving up the number of referrals and operations. That significant progress gives me confidence that it is on track to meet its target. Will she join me in urging the Minister to press NHS England to pause, look at the excellent clinical outcomes and the progress on increasing referral numbers, and think again, to keep this hugely important children’s heart unit open?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. The clinicians at the unit and the hospital bosses have striven continually to improve patient care. They are not complacent for a second. They bust a gut to keep making improvements. Those improvements will, I am sure, be recognised and acknowledged by the 58 patients in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency who are receiving continuing care at Glenfield. He is right to say that NHS England needs to look in detail at the improvements that have been and are being made. When NHS England came to the centre in September—I was more than a little disappointed that it had not made a visit before it launched its proposals to close the unit—it found that some of its perceptions were wrong.
One important standard for improving care is co-locating—bringing together, in other words—the different children’s services, which includes not just surgery but other heart support, paediatric intensive care and wider services available to children. NHS England initially marked Glenfield down for not having plans to co-locate services. I am afraid that that was completely and utterly wrong. On coming to the centre it discovered that there are indeed such plans. I would like the Minister to confirm that University Hospitals of Leicester trust has plans to complete the co-location of all the services before April 2019, and has secured all the capital budget necessary to build its new children’s services hospital. To put all that at risk when the hospital is trying to improve services would be a big mistake.
Finally, I want to discuss the impact on other services in Leicester and the region of closing the children’s heart surgery unit. It is extremely important. As I said earlier, NHS England has itself said that it would not put forward proposals to close the unit unless it had done a risk assessment of the costs and benefits, including the knock-on effect on other services. It has not yet done that. I am concerned about two services in particular. Glenfield has a world-leading extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service. Essentially, if someone has a weak heart and needs surgery on it, ECMO enables oxygen to be pumped back into the blood during the operation. Glenfield’s is only the second ECMO service in the world to treat more than 2,000 patients. It conducts 50% of the entire ECMO activity in the UK. It also has the country’s only national patient transport service enabling people who need ECMO to be transferred swiftly from anywhere in the country to Glenfield. The huge benefits of that service were seen during recent flu crises.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way again. My constituent, Alice Parker, was born at Queen’s Medical Centre 17 years ago. Her condition was so grave that her mum, Vicki, was told to expect the worst, but thanks to the expertise of staff at Glenfield who provide ECMO, Alice is now studying for her A-levels at Bilborough College and hoping to go to university to study biochemistry. Vicki describes the centre as “a true national treasure”, but actually, as my hon. Friend has said, it is an international treasure and it is vital that we do not lose the service.
Liz Kendall
That is right, and in fact Glenfield’s ECMO training is currently being provided not only to people from three other UK centres, but to people from seven other countries. NHS England seems to think that that work can be picked up and transferred somewhere, quickly and immediately, without loss of quality. In fact, as I know from speaking to many clinicians and nurses, that is not as easy as NHS England says.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important debate. Given that Glenfield’s outcomes are among the best in the country, and having listened to accounts of the expertise it offers, I wonder whether she will, with me, encourage the NHS to rethink its decision to close it.
Liz Kendall
Absolutely. It would be a big mistake and it does not have to be this way. The unit is improving its care. It already has some of the best outcomes in the country. If we manage the referral patterns, we can ensure that Glenfield and other units continue to improve their care and support. I am sure that the 41 patients from the hon. Lady’s constituency who are currently being treated at Glenfield will appreciate her speaking out.
UHL is one of five tier 1 providers of acute specialised services in the midlands and the east region. Our amazing paediatric intensive care unit is part of a network of centres covering 17 million people. Any significant change in the number of children with complex heart problems being moved away from UHL will have a serious impact on the PICU and destabilise the network. That is not my view—I am not a clinician—but what the clinicians in the hospital tell me, yet so far NHS England has failed to publish any risk assessment of those knock-on effects on Glenfield’s ECMO or paediatric intensive care. The continuing uncertainty about the unit is terrible for the clinicians who are working there and trying to improve care. The threat of closure may be one of the reasons why it is not receiving as many referrals as it normally would, but it is also deeply destabilising for the families whose children need ongoing care and support.
Sir Edward Garnier
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for letting me intervene on her twice. I concur with the point she made: the situation makes it very difficult to attract clinicians, nursing staff and technicians to such a hospital. We need the expertise but, if there is a state of confusion or uncertainty, things become more difficult. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) wanted to make that point—he has many constituents who work in or use the hospital—but unfortunately, owing to parliamentary business, he was unable to be here at 11 o’clock.
Liz Kendall
I know the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) would have spoken up on behalf of the 94 patients in his constituency who are receiving ongoing care and support.
It is a miracle that Glenfield is providing such incredible standards of care when it has been under the cloud of uncertainty for so many years. It makes no sense to close a unit whose clinical outcomes are already among the best in the country. It makes no sense to deny choice to hundreds of patients who are treated or want to be treated at Glenfield, and their families, when, if services worked together to achieve the number of referrals that we need, our unit and others could benefit and improve. It makes no sense to leave the east midlands as the only region in the country without a children’s heart surgery unit, or to put at risk a world-leading ECMO unit and a vital, high-quality paediatric intensive care unit that supports millions of patients across the midlands and the eastern region.
The Government must think again. They must look in detail at the current evidence from the hospital about its outcomes; they must listen to the views of patients; and they must balance all of those issues—high-quality surgery, ongoing care and support, the knock-on effect on other services and whether other units in the country would be able to treat all those extra patients before they have made huge improvements, which will take time. It does not make sense. It does not have to be this way. We can work together to save the unit and improve care for everybody.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) on securing the debate and on speaking with such evident passion and knowledge on the subject. I think she has impressed us all with her grasp of the issues. I also congratulate all other hon. Members, from both sides of the House, who managed to secure an intervention during her speech. They made their points clear, with some personal testimony from constituents who have used these facilities, and also made clear how important it is to the region of the whole, in their eyes, that the facility continues.
The future of congenital heart disease services at Glenfield hospital is an important subject, not just regionally but as part of the national plan to ensure that we have world-class heart facilities for infants and children in this country. It is a matter that has been around for some time, and I understand the point the hon. Lady and others made about how unsettling the uncertainty around the future of services is for the dedicated staff who work in those units. It is appropriate that we try to bring these discussions to a head in an orderly, thoughtful and timely way, so that that is not prolonged.
It is worth emphasising that NHS England’s review is about ensuring that CHD services are delivered with high quality and that they are consistent and sustainable for the future. The common standards, which have been agreed by clinicians, other experts and patients, are the driving force to make sure every patient benefits from the same excellent care. It is worth reminding hon. Members present that the proposals for changes to adult and children’s congenital heart services at Glenfield and the other centres across the country are at present just that: proposals. They are not final decisions. NHS England will be consulting on the proposals in the coming months, so it is not appropriate for me to respond in detail to all the concerns raised here today.
The hon. Member for Leicester West asked some specific questions, some of which I will be able to address but most of which, I regret to say, I will not. Those will be drawn out when we come to the consultation, so that the points she made about the current performance of the hospital can be brought to attention through the consultation process.
Liz Kendall
I am soon to meet the Minister at the Department of Health. If he is not able to answer the specific questions I have raised, perhaps he can come back to me on those issues at that meeting next month.
Mr Dunne
The hon. Lady has put her points on the record. I will be able to respond to some next month, but some will be part of the consultation, which we anticipate will get under way in the new year.
I am trying to put this in context, particularly in relation to the amount of time that we have been considering how to create excellent centres of congenital heart surgery for children across the country, which has been the subject of concern for more than 20 years. Clinical experts and national parent groups have repeatedly called for change, and there has long been an overwhelming feeling that change is needed. Added to that is the fact that children’s heart surgery has become ever more complex and technically demanding. Surgeons now operate on babies who may be only hours old, which demands a highly-skilled and technical team of doctors and nurses who maintain those skills through regular practice. That is why standards are being progressively raised for each surgeon over time, as the hon. Lady referred to.
As I am sure everyone involved in the Glenfield debate is aware, the process of consultation began quite a long time ago. A Safe and Sustainable review was launched in 2008 by the Department of Health under the previous Labour Administration—of which the hon. Lady was a member—to start addressing these issues. The decisions that came out of that review were challenged in court, via referral to the Secretary of State and subsequently to the independent reconfiguration panel. As a result of those challenges, the Safe and Sustainable review was halted. Responsibility for reviewing children’s CHD services was then handed to NHS England, which decided that its new review of those services would also encompass services for adults.
NHS England’s review team consulted extensively with patients and their families, clinicians and other experts before publishing the new standards for CHD services, which only came into effect in April this year. Hospital trusts providing CHD services were then asked to assess themselves against those standards and report back on their plans to meet the standards within the set timeframes. In July this year, following those assessments and further verification with providers, NHS England announced its proposals for change.
In the case of Glenfield, NHS England is minded to work with University Hospitals of Leicester to safely transfer CHD surgical and interventional cardiology services from there to appropriate alternative hospitals. The rationale for that is that NHS England is currently of the view that Glenfield does not meet the standards to be a centre for surgery and interventional cardiology, and is unlikely to do so in the future. The hon. Lady eloquently expressed her belief, presumably based on conversations with the hospitals and with clinicians, that they are on track to meet those standards. That will be important evidence to make available to the consultation, and I am sure that she and other hon. and right hon. Members will do so over the months of the consultation. NHS England’s assessment is based on information provided by the trust itself about surgical numbers, surgeons and their expertise, and which specialist services are located together. It has not come from the centre; it has come from the trust itself.
There is no plan to close Glenfield as a provider of CHD services, other than in relation to surgery. NHS England is instead proposing to continue to commission specialist medical services that make up much of the pre and post-surgical care required by people with congenital heart disease. Closing the medical services for CHD at the hospital is not mentioned under any of the proposals. That has understandably prompted much concern, including about the impact that such a transfer might have on issues such as children’s extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—ECMO—services and paediatric intensive care services, as the hon. Member for Leicester West identified. As I understand it, when the review was undertaken in 2008, Glenfield was not only the first hospital in the country providing ECMO services but was the leading hospital. There were not many others. Today there are five centres offering ECMO services, so Glenfield is not in quite as strong a position as it was a few years ago.
The hon. Lady referred to the petition on Glenfield and the many hundreds of thousands of people who have signed it, which demonstrates the strength of public support for maintaining the service. It shows how passionately people feel about these issues and their strong desire to defend their local services. At this stage I reiterate to those people that no final decisions have been made. We need to wait and see what comes from the next stage of the process, and I am sure the petitioners will make their views known during that. I appreciate that hon. Members may be frustrated that I cannot answer all their questions at this stage. The hon. Member for Leicester West has referred to the meeting we will have in the coming weeks. I look forward to that and to attempting to answer some of her questions.
I remind hon. Members that this is not about cutting costs—that allegation has not been made by anyone during the debate, which I appreciate. It is about trying to improve the standard of service for some of the most sick infants and children in the country, and to ensure that we have a robust, sustainable pattern of expertise in a slightly smaller number of hospitals. Precisely where we get to in deciding which hospitals should provide those services in future will come through the consultation that will take place. The intent is for a formal, three-month public consultation that will conclude in the spring, with decisions being made next summer. I am sure all hon. and right hon. Members present will participate in that debate and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Education (Merseyside)
(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 Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We will need to start the winding-up speeches at 3.40 pm. At least six Members have indicated they wish to speak. You can do the maths. I will not impose a time limit, but if colleagues are courteous to one another, you will all get in; otherwise, you will not. It’s as simple as that.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education in Merseyside.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I welcome my hon. Friends from across Merseyside to the debate—I include the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who is an hon. Friend on this occasion—as we all speak up for education in Merseyside. We have an opportunity today to do a number of things. The first is to celebrate the many excellent things that are happening in education across the Liverpool city region. The second is to identify some of the challenges, and the third is to seek answers from the Minister on a number of key issues.
I would like to start by thanking and paying tribute to the hard-working people across the education service in Merseyside, including the teachers, the support staff, the governors who give their time voluntarily and, above all, the children and young people. I want to address some issues that relate to my own constituency and then speak a little about challenges facing the city of Liverpool, before finishing with some observations about opportunities for the city region.
Let me start with the early years, which are so vital. We know that people’s life chances are shaped when they are very young. We know the impact of poverty and family background. One of the greatest achievements of the previous Labour Government was Sure Start and the creation of children’s centres, which play a crucial role in my constituency. Liverpool has faced massive cuts in its funding from central Government. The city council’s cuts from central Government are as high as 58%, yet the council has sought to protect children’s centres. At the moment, the council is seeking funding from the clinical commissioning group to enable children’s centres in Liverpool to continue, which I very much hope is successful.
I want in particular to talk about nursery schools. I have two nursery schools in my constituency: Ellergreen and East Prescot Road. Both were judged outstanding by Ofsted, yet both are in fear of their funding being under threat. I know that the Government have promised an additional £55 million nationally for nursery schools over the next two years, but I seek assurances from the Minister today that the long-term funding that is so vital for our nursery schools will be provided, so that their excellent work in providing quality early years education is protected.
I have some great primary schools in my constituency. We know that school readiness in Liverpool is significantly below the national average. Communication, language and literacy levels are well below the national average. That is why the schools rightly place a great emphasis on literacy and numeracy. I contacted the Liverpool Primary Headteachers Association ahead of today’s debate, to ask its members for some thoughts. They expressed a number of fears that they wanted me to share with the Minister. They fear that the new assessment framework in primary schools might increase the likelihood that teachers are teaching to the test. Their fear is that we are not sufficiently recognising the great progress made in our primary schools, as well as rightly looking at the outcomes. They have a significant concern—of course, this is not only in my constituency—about recruitment of school leaders in the primary sector. In particular, they mentioned recruitment and retention of newly qualified teachers and subject specialists in our primary schools.
We have a fantastic set of special schools in my constituency. Two weeks ago, I met students from Sandfield Park School in my constituency to discuss the future of education in Liverpool. That was part of a superb initiative by the Liverpool Schools Parliament, which gives a real voice to children and young people in the city of Liverpool. I would like to mention Jeff Dunn, the council officer who leads that great initiative.
Whenever I visit schools and colleges, one of the issues that comes up most consistently is information, advice and guidance, and in particular what is available for those in the 14 to 19 age range. There are issues of quality, consistency and impartiality. Availability of good information, advice and guidance is crucial at both 14 and 16. It is particularly important that we address this issue for those who are not going down the A-level route. That issue has been raised with me by colleagues in further education and by the excellent university technical college and studio school in Liverpool.
There is a school in my constituency that I have mentioned before, and I mention it again today because it is an example of best practice. Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School provides superb advice and guidance from age 11. It issues year 7 students with a passport, which is updated through their years at school. It has industry days, where people from different occupations are invited to come in and talk to the boys so that they can learn about potential occupations. That is a fine example, but sadly it is still too rare. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to encourage and spread best practice across the board in information, advice and guidance?
Connected to that, we still have not got the issue of high-quality technical, practical and vocational education right in this country. I see great work in the City of Liverpool College, in the Alt Valley Community Trust and its North Liverpool Community College in my constituency, but whenever I talk to leaders in further education and in technical and practical education, they talk about spending cuts in FE and uncertainty—for example, about the implementation of the apprenticeship levy.
I am keen that the most academic students have the best opportunities they can. Last year, I established the Liverpool to Oxbridge Collaborative. I am working with eight local secondary schools to ensure that the most academically able students have the information and advice they need, and that they have the opportunity to visit Oxford and Cambridge and get help with their applications and interviews. I have been struck by the enthusiasm that the students who have been identified to be part of the project have shown, by the amazing support they have had from their parents and by the commitment of the schools and teachers to it. The goal is simple: the most academic pupil at a comprehensive school in my constituency in north Liverpool should have the same chance to get into our best universities as students at the top private schools. They will get the full support if they make that choice.
Of course, education is not only about young people. Lifelong learning is critical. I am struck in my constituency and across Merseyside at the positive work that trade unions do in promoting education—for example, via Unionlearn, the Trades Union Congress learning and skills organisation. I am also proud to be a patron of the Workers Educational Association, which does fantastic work in Liverpool and across the country.
In 2012, the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, set up an education commission. He invited my noble Friend, Estelle Morris, to chair that commission, and its report, “From Better to Best”, was published a year later. Over the last two decades, we have seen a significant improvement in the quality and results of schools across Liverpool. GCSE performance has moved from well below national average to much closer to it, reaching a peak in 2012 of 56.8% of students achieving at least five A* to C grades including English and maths. However, those results started to fall back after 2012, to 48.6% last year. I am encouraged that the provisional results suggest we have turned the corner, with Liverpool schools’ results going up to 51% this year. That is still below the national average but it is an improvement on last year.
A lot has been done since the Mayor’s commission. The Liverpool learning partnership is a very exciting innovation that recently gained charitable status. It is a membership organisation, and its members are the schools of Liverpool. Almost every single school is a member, including academies and free schools and the further education college. It is taking forward a number of programmes, such as “City of Readers”, which takes up the challenge that Estelle Morris set to make Liverpool the United Kingdom’s foremost reading city; “Liverpool Counts”, which seeks to focus on numeracy; and the new cultural education partnership. The aim is to work with schools, local authorities and School Improvement Liverpool. It is an excellent example of collaboration and I urge the Minister to study the strengths and achievements of the Liverpool learning partnership and to learn lessons for policy in other parts of the country.
Last year, the Mayor and Councillor Nick Small, the cabinet member for education, asked me to chair a strategy group to establish a Liverpool challenge. The vision is straightforward. How do we make reality of the mayor’s education commission report? How do we move from better to best? What can Liverpool schools learn from one another? What can the world of education in Liverpool do to learn from the world of work and what can we learn from other parts of the country?
When I was a Minister, I had the privilege of leading the London challenge. I recognise that Liverpool in 2016 is very different from London in 2003. There is not the extra money there was at that time and the context is of course different, but I believe we can learn from School Improvement’s experience in other parts of the country and indeed of the world. I am delighted that we have engaged the support of Sir Tim Brighouse, who worked with me on the London challenge, and the Education Development Trust, led by Steve Munby, to support schools in Liverpool to achieve that further improvement.
The goal is simple. To use the Sir Tim Brighouse’s phrase, we want to improve on previous best. There are many components, and one is to ensure we have the money to improve on previous best. There is real concern across Liverpool about the potential effect of the proposed change to the schools funding formula. I tread with care, because I realise that other parts of Merseyside might benefit from the proposed change, but I am focusing on the city of Liverpool, where estimates suggest we could lose £300 per child when the formula changes.
I know that the new Secretary of State has delayed introducing the new formula and I welcome that delay. I urge the Minister to listen to Liverpool schools’ concerns so that we do not lose out when the funding formula change happens, because it is vital to have the money we need to be able to deliver the quality education that children and young people have every right to deserve.
Finally, I want to say something about the role of Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is here today. Devolution provides great opportunities for local communities, local people and local authorities to work together to achieve real improvement.
On education, the existing devolution agreements are positive. The adult skills budget is devolved, which is critical because of the number of adults across the city region with no formal qualifications, and is significantly higher at 11.5%, compared with a national figure of 8.6%, which is a national scandal, but our percentage is higher. Having the adult skills budget devolved is crucial, and we have some powers over apprenticeships and post-16 education and training, including leading on a local skills strategy. These things are important. The metro mayor, working with the combined authority, can truly drive a skills agenda that meets the needs of employers and citizens across the city region. Will the Minister do all he can to ensure that the city region has the resources it will need to do that properly?
I urge the Government to go further. I served as a Minister in the Department for Education, and it is fair to say that, whoever is in power, it tends to be rather centralist in its approach to policy. It was thus when I was there and it remains so now, particularly with the planning and commissioning of new school places around the country. Decisions are made at the centre. That is wrong and goes against the spirit of devolution, which is that decisions should be made close to where the people affected by those decisions live. Liverpool’s city region is of the right scale and size to be able to plan for future school places. Will the Minister work with the city region to explore devolution of the regional schools commissioner’s work?
Ultimately, the Liverpool challenge, which is about the city of Liverpool, could be taken up across the whole of Merseyside. It would be a more successful challenge if that were done because there are lessons to be learned from different parts of the city region.
This debate deliberately has a broad title to enable colleagues to participate and to raise a wide range of issues. I have focused on just some of those issues: funding, the pace of change and the narrowing of the curriculum. I want to finish by making an observation and then reiterating my six questions for the Minister.
The observation is that teacher morale is really important and morale in our education system now is at an all-time low. That concerns me enormously because money and resources are critical and the accountability framework has a massive impact. The curriculum matters and assessment matters, but having highly motivated and committed teachers, support staff and leaders in our system is surely the most important ingredient of a successful education system. Will the Minister reflect on that? We all have a responsibility to ensure that morale is raised across our education system.
Will the Minister safeguard funding for nursery schools nationwide? Will he encourage best practice on information, advice and guidance? Will he learn from the collaborative approach of the Liverpool learning partnership? Will he protect the Liverpool schools budget as the formula changes? Will he look at the Liverpool city region and, in particular, ensure it has the resources to deliver the local skills strategy and move to give it powers to shape the commissioning and planning of school places? Those are reasonable demands to enable a good education system across Merseyside to become a much better education system.
I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues today and look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the Minister.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has given us for this timely debate.
I want to make three points about education in our city region. First, I wish to raise a problem that confronts the governors and teaching staff at St Aloysius Catholic Primary School in Huyton. Its June 2015 Ofsted report stated:
“Disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs achieve very well. The progress that they make in all subjects is accelerated because of the high expectations of their teachers and good-quality support from skilled teaching assistants.”
There are 310 pupils on the roll at St Aloysius, six of whom are in receipt of an education, health and care plan. The first 12 hours of each plan are funded by the school, but some of the children’s needs are so significant that the school has to provide additional hours of support, causing further strain on its budget.
In 2015-16, the cost to the school of providing one-to-one support for those six children was £115,300—approximately 10% of the school’s overall budget. Effectively, this means that the teachers engaged in this resource-intensive area of the school’s work are not available to teach the other pupils. The cost of funding these plans, alongside investing time, money and support from educational psychologists and a range of therapists, is to the detriment of the school’s overall budget. That is a growing problem, as other schools, recognising St Aloysius’s strong commitment to children with special educational needs, are increasingly referring more children there, at the same time relieving their budget of the additional costs involved. Will the Minister note that schools that refer children with special educational needs to St Aloysius still receive that part of the general budget for special needs that all schools receive, even though they may not have any children with such needs? That is clearly unfair, and I ask the Minister to look at the problem, which, though it certainly affects St Aloysius, is, I suspect, not unique to that school.
My second point is about educational attainment in Knowsley. In early years and primary schools, outcomes for children have historically been close to or in line with national thresholds, but at the end of key stage 4, when children sit their GCSEs, Knowsley falls significantly behind national standards. To help to tackle that issue, Knowsley Council has set up an education commission. I hope that the Government will engage with that commission and support the work that it is doing to try to raise attainment levels.
I am sure that we all agree that improving social mobility is essential for improving the economic prospects of local residents and breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty. I welcome the Government’s recent announcement on the creation of new opportunity areas across England, which will see £60 million spent on school improvement in six social mobility coldspots. However, I was surprised, given Knowsley’s usual placement in the indices of multiple deprivation, that it was not selected as one of the pilot areas, so will the Government consider how areas such as Knowsley could be supported with similar targeted investment shaped around improving social mobility?
There are a couple of more positive educational developments in Knowsley. One is the Shakespeare North Trust, which has been carrying out plans to build a Shakespearean playhouse in Prescot. Its plans support the Arts Council’s goal for children and young people, which includes ensuring that every child has the chance to visit, experience and participate in high-quality, extraordinary work, and the chance to know more, understand more and review the experiences that they have had.
A further positive development is Knowsley Safari Park’s Bio-Inspire project, which will engage children of all ages in learning about the world around them, extending their innate interest in animals and wildlife to teach them about science, technology, engineering, humanities and art. I hope that the Government will be able to support that project also.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the constant obsession of successive Governments with the branding of schools, whether we are talking about academies, free schools or, more recently, the proposals to expand grammar schools, and with decoupling secondary education in particular from local authority involvement. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) will have more to say about that in a moment. Far too much time and energy has been committed to issues of governance and what schools are called, at the expense of a 21st-century cold hard look at the actual education that is required to equip young people properly for the world in which we live.
In an interview in last Sunday’s edition of The Observer, the chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, gave a thoughtful account of the direction that we need to take in education reform if we are to serve the needs of future generations more effectively. Ruling out blanket solutions, and viewing the proposal for more grammar schools as an unnecessary distraction, he also drew attention to the post-Brexit challenge of the
“need to develop vocational education in the system so the country produces young people with skills to replace immigrant workers”.
That is not to say that core academic skills, and the ability for those who want to do so to follow a more traditional academic education, are not important—of course they are—but rather to argue that in some cases, there should be available a post-14 education that prepares more fully those who choose the option of vocational education.
The oft-repeated mantra about the need for lifelong education, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby referred, needs to be developed beyond windy rhetoric—that is not what his speech was—into a concrete reality. In future, instead of education being a time-specific, one-off choice, as it too often is at present, it should be lifelong and flexible—in other words, an education for the 21st century.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on having started this crucial debate. I do not know about you, Sir Roger, but I think that we hon. Members often find ourselves talking in this place about things we do not know a great deal about. Happily, I do not think I am in that position today, because I spent 30 years teaching in a variety of schools on Merseyside. I was married to a supply teacher who taught all over Merseyside. I have been a member of a local education authority and a school governor. I have had four children educated on Merseyside, and I even started my education in, I believe, the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, at Corinthian Avenue Primary School, if it is still there. The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head, so it must be.
I want to make just a couple of observations. Liverpool and Merseyside are seen as problematic in educational terms, but as Michael Wilshaw said in drawing attention to some of the problems:
“Are you really telling me that they lack swagger and dynamism? That they cannot succeed in the way London has succeeded? These are the cities that built Britain. They pioneered a modern, civic education”.
When I think of the history of Liverpool and Merseyside education, I think of a number of cracking schools, or schools that have been very good quality. Some of the names are now historical; some of the names have been changed, and sometimes the structures of the schools have been changed, but I am thinking of St Francis Xavier’s College, Liverpool Collegiate School, Quarry Bank and even Ruffwood in its pomp. I also think of Blue Coat, Alsop, Holly Lodge, the Liverpool Institute, which I know has gone but which my dad went to, as did two members of the Beatles, Prescot Grammar School, which I attended, De La Salle, St Margaret’s, St Julie’s and so on. There are a lot of good schools in that mix, and a lot of very eminent people were pupils at those schools. Incidentally, many of the schools that are now wholly private, such as Blue Coat, started off as schools with a particular impetus to address the needs of the most deprived children in Liverpool. There is a great academic tradition there, and we ought not to be in any way shy about declaring that.
Unfortunately, there has also been quite a mediocre tradition, in terms of technical education, and there is another less commendable tradition in the area: many families and many generations across Merseyside have seen education as a necessary evil—as a time-consuming interlude before the real world of work. In the past, that meant the docks, car factories, wholesale distribution or whatever. We can call that low aspiration, but at one time it was a perfectly realistic aspiration, because there were those jobs. Sadly, there are not those jobs now. The world has moved on, but attitudes have not shifted across Merseyside quite as quickly, so there is a problem that we need to face up to. The problem is that it is a low-skill economy. Despite all efforts in the past to do a great deal about that, not a lot has changed over the last few decades. There is low educational attainment in certain areas. What worries all of us, including, I know, the Minister, is the tale of girls and boys who simply do not achieve what they should, and who face a problematic employment future.
I know that the solution is pretty complex. It is multifactorial; schools are only part of the solution. We have to address such issues as housing, employment and family structure. However, it strikes me that the educational fix is pretty clear; it was well laid out by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. Good early-years education is crucial, as is family support alongside that for those people who are unable to support their children in the way that we might hope. Strong school leadership is pivotal, and explains the destiny of some of the schools that I mentioned. Morale, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is also crucial, because it is no good having a great leader if he is not followed by troops who are persuaded that he is doing the right thing and are supportive of the task. Capital and revenue resource clearly makes a difference, and underpins the success of programmes such as the London Challenge. Also necessary is an intolerance of failure, which the Minister has voiced on several occasions.
The interesting thing about that solution, which I think we would all recognise and buy into, is that it is, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, very little to do with most of the Government’s initiatives at the moment, which are all to do with structure. How changing schools to grammar schools or academisation actually delivers these things eludes me. What seems deficient—the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned the Liverpool city region—is a vehicle for local delivery, something that could make a London Challenge in Liverpool, because ensuring that there are good schools across the area cannot be done piecemeal. It is easy to get some good schools here, some indifferent schools there, and some sink schools elsewhere.
We need a powerful strategic player, and traditionally that has been the local authority’s role. As the Minister will not be slow to point out, some local authorities have failed. To be fair to the right hon. Member for Knowsley, over the years Knowsley has struggled badly. Equally, mayors can fail; for whatever reason, Mayor Anderson has not delivered on the 2012 ambition he set himself. Local authorities are a key player and need to be burdened with that task. Too often, historically, local authorities have been slightly obsessed with what we might call their premium brand; the mayor always showed up to the grammar school for speech day, but was not necessarily there when other schools had similar events. We need local authorities in this because we have to ensure equity of outcome, proper prioritisation across the piece, and that what is delivered in education is economically and socially relevant.
Wholesale educational improvement, which the debate is about, is a community task—it is a community treasure when delivered—but it is definitely in the whole community’s interest. I fail to see how we can do that without reinventing the LEA in some form or other, to give proper strategic leadership to the task presenting itself to us.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) not only on securing this important debate, but on the important work he is doing on education in Liverpool. His input there is absolutely invaluable. Education is vitally important in developing the potential of every individual; it is also important for the future of the city of Liverpool, and other areas in Merseyside, because unless people’s potential is developed and their skills can be utilised, the city does not prosper.
I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the background to this debate: the very high cuts to local government funding in Liverpool. He quoted the figure of 58%, but if the plans to 2020 are carried out, there will have been a cut of 65% to core funding in the city of Liverpool since 2010. To add to that, changes in the education grant formula are of extreme concern for the future. Although Liverpool City Council and the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, certainly oppose those cuts, and are very vocal about them, they do not just say what they are against; they are very clear that they are willing to innovate.
That innovation has taken place in Liverpool, whether in building new schools when the conventional sources of funding have been denied, or in looking at the needs of the under-fives and protecting Sure Start centres, children’s centres and nurseries. There is a particular threat to the future of children’s centres, which are absolutely vital in preparing children for school and supporting families. Both those functions are absolutely essential. I applaud the city council’s efforts in working with the local NHS, through the clinical commissioning group, to try to secure funding from that group to go with local authority funding, and I hope that the Government are able to support that in any way they can. That is a another example of innovation and thinking outside the box: looking at how we can put different sources of funding together to benefit the people we represent.
Further education is of particular importance. It is about developing a wide range of skills, aptitudes and interests, and also about giving people a second chance. Often, students who were not able to succeed in school—perhaps the educational system failed them, rather than the other way round—are able to see new possibilities when they go into further education and, in particular, college. It is absolutely essential that they be given support there.
Some 87% of students who attend the City of Liverpool College are from deprived areas. The abolition of the education maintenance allowance and other financial issues have landed a great blow on those people. When we look at ways of supporting individuals’ learning and education, we sometimes miss some of the basics. Sometimes people are struggling with difficult family situations, and when they do not have the means to survive, day by day, that inhibits their educational potential. It might not inhibit the potential of people who are already fully committed to education and have full confidence in themselves—those individuals can survive hardships—but people struggling to get self-confidence who are being encouraged to see new ways ahead sometimes struggle against the odds when their basic financial needs are not met. I ask Ministers to look again at that area.
There is a specific problem relating to the high proportion of students going to that college who have inadequate English and maths GCSEs. There is a problem in getting them to the required standards with the funding that is available, so I ask Ministers to look at that. There is also an ongoing issue about funding sufficient numbers of apprenticeships in that area. The Government have recently made statements saying that funding will be available, but I again ask Ministers to keep looking at that. Colleges should not be constantly concerned about adequate funding for apprenticeships. When students have commitment and want to make a real improvement to their life, they should be helped to do it.
Finally, I must mention the other vital area: higher education. In Liverpool, we have four outstanding higher education institutions. Liverpool John Moores University has made an outstanding contribution, not only to Liverpool, but to the country. It was the first university to combine what it then called employability—learning the practical skills of how to do a job properly—with academic understanding and analytical knowledge. It was the first to pioneer that, and it offers a range of very exciting courses. The University of Liverpool is an outstanding Russell Group university. It is outstanding in its teaching, research and the number of Nobel prize winners associated with it, particularly in the area of science. Liverpool Hope University has become an outstanding university, nationally recognised, and it should be encouraged in its work.
I must declare that I am a member of the council of the fourth organisation I will mention: the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts. It is an outstanding higher education institution developing the creative arts, as well as interest in the creative arts, knowledge, practical ability and theoretical understanding, together with employability. Many of the stars of today were educated at LIPA. It might be worth remembering that LIPA began with support from the European Union. That is how it got where it was, and now it raises funds by other means. It is absolutely outstanding, and I hope that Ministers are able to support it. It is a credit not just to Liverpool, but the world; it operates internationally.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion because I know other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that Ministers are able to develop the points that I have made and to give their support, where Government support is needed, to go with the innovation and enthusiasm that comes from the city of Liverpool itself.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
You might recall, Sir Roger, that during the Finance Bill Committee, as a Whip I was grateful for your guidance in my silent role. I hope that will continue now that I am trying to find my voice from the Back Benches.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this debate. I am grateful to him for enabling us to discuss these important matters. Too often, policy discussions are London-centric. This debate provides a good opportunity to highlight the great work being done in Merseyside and my constituency of St Helens North, and also to raise concerns about aspects of current Government policy and the detrimental impact it is having in our city region.
I want to focus my brief remarks on further and higher education and apprenticeships, but at the start let me say something about early-years education and funding. As other hon. Members have said, we know that early childhood is a crucial stage of life in terms of a child’s physical, intellectual, emotional and social development. It is a time when children need high-quality personal care and learning experiences.
In answer to a recent parliamentary question that I asked the Secretary of State for Education, it was revealed that three and four-year-old children in St Helens get almost £1 an hour less spent on them than children in the rest of the country: 21% below the national average. St Helens gets just £3.61 per child per hour from central Government towards the education of three and four-year-olds compared with the national average of £4.56 per hour spent on each child in England. With the exception of the Liverpool City Council area, the entire Merseyside region fares badly. The extreme cuts to local government, which will mean that by 2020 my council area in St Helens will have had its grant cut by more than it collects in council tax, merely exacerbate the problem of underfunding for children in St Helens. They should have the same rights and get the same opportunities as those in the rest of England, and that means they should have the same amount spent on them.
At the other end of the educational journey for young people, there are 10 further education and sixth- form colleges on Merseyside providing high-quality education and training to 57,000 students. St Helens College, if I might humbly say, is one of the best in the entire north-west and we are very proud to have it in our borough. Statistics from the national Association of Colleges show that the economic return to taxpayers from colleges on Merseyside is £5.40 for every £1 invested, and Merseyside colleges work with a huge range of employers to meet their needs: 5,500 in the city region and nearly 10,000 nationally. Although the excellent work undertaken by colleges should be commended, the system is under immense pressure.
Various issues currently affect colleges and schools in the region and their ability to meet the Government’s ambition of a good education that works for all. Chief among them, of course, is funding. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, school spending is expected to fall by at least 7% in real terms by 2020, which would be the largest fall over any period since the 1970s. That has left St Helens College and schools in my constituency facing something close to mission impossible as they struggle to cope with a large increase in student numbers, leaving staff under huge pressure. This is at a time when there is a chronic shortage of teachers across education after six years of missed Government targets for recruiting new trainees and with a hugely demoralised profession. The number of teachers quitting—some 50,000 last year—is at a record high. Our teachers should be valued and supported; they should not have their reputation and their profession traduced by the Government.
Skilled jobs and apprenticeships are an important part of education in my constituency and are a vital route into employment. They give an opportunity to learn and develop skills for the workplace while earning a living. St Helens chamber of commerce—one of the best in the country—supports local employers to deliver good quality apprenticeships. There are still concerns over the take-up of apprenticeships among 16 to 18-year-olds in Merseyside, and we need to ensure that the apprenticeships on offer are of a high quality and provide young people with the training and skills that they need.
As well as vocational training and apprenticeships, for many in the region, going on to university or higher education is the chosen route to employment. However, statistics that I have obtained show that the percentage of young people in St Helens going on to higher education has dropped by more than 6% since 2012, and the percentage of children from disadvantaged backgrounds on free school meals going on to further education has dropped by 21%. That is deeply concerning because the Government’s own assessment shows that the cuts will have a disproportionate effect on disabled people, women, older learners and people from industrial areas such as St Helens. The Government talk a good game about aspiration and creating a northern powerhouse, but in terms of encouraging people into higher education, that seems to be little more than rhetoric, certainly for the people in St Helens.
I will conclude shortly and allow colleagues the opportunity to speak. It is clear that more needs to be done so that people in St Helens North and the whole of Merseyside get the good-quality education they deserve. The area-based review of further education currently being undertaken will hopefully identify the shortfalls and offer solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), Labour’s candidate for mayor of the city region, is passionate about education and creating opportunities, and I look forward to working with him to progress this agenda in all parts of the region, which I know he is committed to.
There should be fair and equal funding for children and young people across the country. Merseyside should not be left behind. I will work constructively with anyone who has a commitment to education and who wants to give children and young people the best start in life, but I am bound to say that the current Tory education policies are failing children, parents and teachers. While the Government obsess about school structures and bringing back selective education, budgets are falling. There are chronic teacher shortages and not enough school places. A good education should not be a privilege. It is every child’s right. I will continue to campaign in this House and in St Helens so that children and young people in my constituency and across Merseyside get the education to which they are entitled and which they deserve.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place today. He has previously met me and other Knowsley MPs to discuss the current lack of sixth-form provision in the borough. Perhaps he will comment on progress in today’s debate.
My constituency spans parts of two local authorities: St Helens and Knowsley. We celebrate the success of Carmel sixth form, which has good numbers going to the redbrick universities, as does Rainhill High School and St Helens College, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). Schools in St Helens South and Whiston are improving year on year, and I congratulate Cowley International College, where I was a long-term governor, on its successful Ofsted rating of good.
A Social Market Foundation report showed that disadvantaged schools are more likely to have unqualified, inexperienced and inappropriately trained teaching staff. Many schools across the region are struggling with recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers and suffer from high staff turnover. In Knowsley, a part of my constituency, schools are particularly struggling to recruit quality teachers in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. One highly incentivised recruitment programme for maths teachers attracted just one applicant. Quality teaching is a critical factor in pupil attainment. The recruitment crisis will only compound the ongoing attainment gap and inequality in education.
Teacher shortages mean that schools are forced to use supply teachers who are often not qualified in the subject matter to fill the void and at a much greater cost, further challenging financially constrained schools. The crisis has grown under this Government, and schools and local education authorities need support to tackle the problem now. Over the past five years, freezes to the dedicated schools grant have led to real-term cuts in funding. At the same time, schools have had to increase employer pension and national insurance contributions.
Research by the Association of School and College Leaders shows that 70% of schools are planning to cut the number of courses they offer. Lucy, a St Helens resident and pupil in my constituency, is a talented musician who plays the flute. She is presently studying grade 7 and was on course to reach grade 8 by the time she leaves school. However, owing to funding cuts, her school principal tells me it is no longer viable to run the music GCSE course, leaving Lucy and other children absolutely devastated. I hope the cuts do not spread out and affect our search for funding towards our theatre in Prescot in Knowsley.
Instead of focusing on giving headteachers the resources and support they need to recruit and retain permanent quality teachers and to improve the maximum attainment of pupils, the Government go on to waste millions on free schools in areas that do not need more places. We do not understand that where we serve our constituents.
The Government are obsessing over a return to the 1960s grammar school selective system, but grammar schools are not the answer to the problems of our local education systems. Evidence from the Commons Library shows grammar schools are not the golden ticket to social mobility that the Government would have us believe. In practice, grammar schools will create a magnet that draws more quality teachers and pupils away from comprehensives, leaving additional challenges of recruitment and retention, and therefore affecting the attainment of our pupils.
Evidence shows that grammar schools fail children with statements of special educational needs or education, health and care plans more than any other group. Just 0.1% of grammar school entrants have an SEN statement, compared with 2.8% of the total pupil population. Thousands of children with special educational needs are on the autism spectrum. The new special educational needs and disability code of practice states that support will routinely be put in place quickly when issues are picked up. However, access to diagnosis is a problem and routinely takes more than a year. I urge the Government to focus robustly on identification and speedy diagnosis.
Shamefully, evidence from the National Autistic Society shows that one in six pupils waits more than three years to get support, depriving them of the opportunity to get the best from their education. I urge the Minister to ask the Government to look again at how the new SEND system supports children with autism, and to look to provide local authorities with additional support in improving identification, delivery and transition in those children’s education.
There are local reports of a lack of provision for some of the hardest-to-help young people—especially care leavers and young offenders. Many people would turn their eyes away from them. Budget constraints mean that some providers are reluctant to take on pupils who need additional intensive support. Free and grammar schools will not select those children; they will be left to other schools to pick up, adding further to their challenges. I urge the Minister to consider those children, provide additional specific funding and focus on meeting their needs. They should not be left behind as they are at present. The Government should allow more flexibility in current funding, to ensure that those learners can remain in supported provision, to help them progress according to their individual needs.
Our local authorities and schools are committed, and are working hard. Governors work tremendously hard and parent support is high—it is needed in some areas. However, huge cuts to budgets mean that schools simply do not have the resources that are needed. It is high time the Government chose to spend efficiently in education. They should look at the needs that exist now, instead of going for frills that we simply cannot afford, while some children are denied the education that they should be entitled to. That is the only way we shall do away with inequality in education provision.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak on this important issue, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this important debate. Often in Britain, and all too often on Merseyside, the place where people are born seems to determine where they end up in life, but education is a tool that offers young people the hope of going on to achieve their full potential. It can provide the ladder of opportunity for the next generation and education policy should primarily be designed to do that. It should not be a political football for any Minister or Secretary of State, attempting to impose a narrow sense of ideological entitlement on others. Schools in my constituency, and indeed across our city region, are proud of what they have achieved. The tireless work of our teachers, governors and staff has been mentioned by many hon. Members today. They devote their lives to getting the best out of children, but it has to be said that educational attainment is stronger in some areas of the city region than others.
I note the criticism of the mayor of Liverpool, Mayor Anderson, by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), but the city mayor has been asked to achieve something with one hand tied behind his back, partly because of some savage cuts inflicted by the coalition Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member.
Steve Rotheram
Surely yes.
The excellent work of many in our schools is often hamstrung by factors outside their control. Research by the House of Commons Library suggests that in my constituency just 38% of students get five A* to C GCSEs, including English and maths. With a national average of 53.8% that puts us well behind, but that in no way reflects the effort of the schools and teachers. Although it is only 10 miles away, Wirral’s figure is seven percentage points above the national average, at 61%. It is easy to imply that schools need to do more and be better, as the Prime Minister said today. There has not been a Secretary of State in the past 50 years who has not trotted out the tired old mantra that we need more good schools, but improvement cannot be achieved without the collaborative efforts of parents, teachers and governors and, most importantly, it cannot be achieved without the Government’s political will to invest fully in children’s future.
For far too many pupils there is poverty of aspiration. In many cases we have failed to convince young people from working-class backgrounds that they can be the doctors, nurses and lawyers and even, God forbid, the political leaders of tomorrow. I bet that that is not the case in many of the schools that many on the Government Front Bench went to. The Government’s idea of harking back to the 1950s and an elitist education system by returning to the dreaded 11-plus will do nothing to increase the life chances of the majority of young people.
The grammar school system is designed to achieve the best not for all but for the selected few. How can the Prime Minister advocate grammar schools when she stood on the steps of Downing Street a few weeks ago and promised the British people that she would lead a Government that works for everyone? Grammar schools will segregate, not educate. They will polarise communities, not promote social cohesion. Grammar schools would once again stifle the prospects of many of the children who would inevitably see themselves as failures if they did not pass the entrance exam. As Ofsted’s chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw put it, grammar schools will “put the clock back”. The desire for selection at 11 years old tells us all we need to know about the Government and how they see our precious education system. It is a microcosm of their entire political ideology. It will deliver for the few, not the many.
As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby highlighted, teachers have voiced their concerns about upcoming Government proposals such as the prospect of a national funding formula and the added pressure to offer a more restricted curriculum because of the baccalaureate and progress 8. However, the new devolution deals provide an opportunity to transfer decision making and accountability to a local level. We currently face a situation in which the Government seek to devolve powers over industrial strategy and economic growth to metro mayors while fragmenting delivery and centralising accountability in the education system. That does not make sense. We have a ludicrous situation in which local education authorities continue to have statutory responsibilities under legislation such as the Education Act 1996 while having been deprived of any levers to pull to fulfil those duties and influence outcomes. For example, every secondary school in Knowsley is now an academy and is therefore much more accountable to the Secretary of State, through the schools commissioner, than to locally elected politicians, but—guess what?—local politicians get the blame when they are threatened with the withdrawal of A-level provision in the borough.
The problem in Merseyside is not the level of attainment of the top 20%; it is the level of attainment of the rest. We need an education system that lifts the attainment of all, not just those who are gifted and talented. That is why I am calling for the return of an element of local accountability. Education provides the building blocks for achieving the economic success we so desperately need, so the Minister should make the regional schools commissioner accountable to the metro mayor. I would appreciate it if he would address that issue specifically. That would afford the incoming metro mayor—and here I must declare an interest, Sir Roger—the opportunity to create a city region education strategy that could work collaboratively as the catalyst for sharing best practice. If elected metro mayor, I will introduce a pathways to excellence programme in our city region and help to raise educational attainment in each of the six districts, lifting the level of aspiration across all our communities, with no borough and no child left behind.
As metro mayor I want to harness the pool of talent that we have. I want to attract global businesses to locate into our area, offering the high-skilled, high-paid, high-aspiration jobs we need, as well as developing the new businesses that will lift our economy. However, developing a world-class workforce has to start at an early stage, and that has to be in our schools. The metro mayor does not have the responsibility, through the devolved powers they can use, to affect that, which is why we need a joined-up, consistent devolutionary approach between the Government’s industrial and education policies. I hope the Minister specifically addresses that point when he gets to his feet.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for securing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to make contributions that cover a wide range of issues.
I want to start by picking up a theme that has been developed by the Opposition—that is, the question of grammar schools. Grammar schools are a complete and utter distraction from the things that we need to get to grips with in the short, medium and long term. We need to put that on the record. It is not ideological; it just does not work. People talk about going backwards. This is not just about going back to the ’50s—we will be going back before that and it really is not acceptable.
In a debate such as this, the question is where we begin with such a vast area to cover. There is the whole range, from early years right the way through to university education. I wanted to look at the issue systematically in my neck of the woods, so I wrote to a number of education charities and asked them whether they would be prepared to talk to me about an analysis—research potentially in collaboration with one of the local universities—of my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) referred to the fact that more than 35% of students in his constituency get grades A to C. The situation is broadly similar in my constituency, at about 40%. I want to tease out some issues related to that, because our schools do fantastic work. Teachers, governors and parents work hard. Day in, day out, they do the work that we ask them, but we can ask of them only so much.
I want to look beyond the narrower situation regarding education and try to determine what the other factors are. I have an idea what they are. In fact, a local group of headteachers came up with their views, serendipitously, and I will be working with them to tease them out. The issues were pupil welfare—diet, dental health, deterioration in accommodation, behavioural problems, mental health issues and stresses relating to the bureaucracy, as it is put. They have stresses and strains all over the place, and this is in an area with a partnership that has 24 schools, most of which are judged to be good or better, with two outstanding schools. One of those outstanding schools has had five outstanding Ofsted inspections on the trot, which I think is unprecedented. At this point, I pay tribute to the former headteacher of that school, Brian Mulroy, who died recently. He spent his life in education and was one of the men who got the school to that status. I put my thanks on the record for the work that he did, and he is not the only one who does such work and who puts their time and effort in, day in and day out.
What happens when the Government introduce things that result in the problems we have had with Concentrix recently? Hard-working families have been put under even more stress because their tax credits have been drawn away from them, and as a consequence, their children have not got free school meals. Whether we like it or not, that has an impact on children’s education. Those sorts of policies are not doing anybody any good. The late Chris Woodhead said that my constituency was doing fantastically against all the odds, and that is because we care for our children. Teachers and families do, and everybody tries to do their best, but they can do only so much.
The Government have to get to the stage where they stop the centralised control of education. Frankly, what Dorset does in relation to Dorset is a matter for Dorset. I do not care. Within parameters, it is for Dorset and any other place to get on with their education systems. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton in saying that we have to stop the atomisation and fragmentation of the education service, and the shilly-shallying around with structures yet again. We have to bring that responsibility back—that might mean bringing it back to the city region in collaboration with renewed and reinvigorated local education authorities. I support my hon. Friend and look forward to working with him on that.
We also have to put the resource in. There is something wrong when we have the situation we have in Merseyside. This is not about picking on other local authorities, but my local authority is the lowest-funded authority in Merseyside per pupil: we get about £300 less than Liverpool. However, we get £1,000 less than Westminster, and there is something wrong with that type of allocation of funding. Westminster is getting about £1,000 more per pupil than my constituency—that is quite shocking and it is just not acceptable. The Government should be getting to grips with that rather than fiddling about with grammar schools and the national formula. The history we have with this Government shows that they will fiddle the formula, which is exactly what they did with local government.
If we are to have a regime, let it be a localised one. If we are to have a funding formula, let it truly be a funding formula and let the children of my constituency get as much money as they need to get a decent education. That is the key.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and, for once in a while, to be in a room where we are not defending or advocating for airports in our constituencies.
If I may allude to the physical layout of the Chamber, the Minister should not feel too isolated. A lot of great speeches have been made from the Opposition Benches, but I am always reminded of a story that came to me from a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). There was a very controversial planning application in his area in the late 1960s for the safari park. He has talked with passion about work involving Shakespeare and the educational outcomes for the safari park, but the local councillor at that time was all on his own in supporting the development. One young, angry Knowsley resident stood up in a room of 700 and asked, with his baby in his arms, “What happens when one of those lions or tigers gets out on to the high street?” The crowd roared. This old councillor in his 80s—in Huyton, which was Harold Wilson’s constituency —rubbed his hair, sucked on his pipe and said, “Well, it’ll just have to take its chances, along with the rest of us.” If the Minister is feeling isolated, how does he think I feel as a Mancunian with all these Merseyside MPs right behind me? However, I have to say that since we built the ship canal in 1894, thanks to Daniel Adamson, the entente cordiale between our two great city regions has improved no end, so it is great to respond from the Front Bench in this debate.
Mr George Howarth
I gently mention to my hon. Friend that it is not usually a good idea to steal somebody’s lines when they are sitting behind you. [Laughter.]
Mike Kane
Let us get on to the real issue at hand.
In my opinion, the Government have failed to build an education system—as a former teacher, I see this day in, day out—that provides opportunity for all. They are increasingly obsessed with structures—which matter—more than the outcomes for young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) talked about shilly-shallying, and it is shilly-shallying of the first order. They are not tackling the key challenges facing our system: declining budgets and chronic shortages of teachers and places, as alluded to by a number of Members. They are failing to invest and our schools are facing, for the first time since the 1990s, real cuts to their funding.
As a teacher doing my teacher training course after Tony Blair got elected in 1997, part of my day job was going round with a bucket to try and catch the rain coming in from the roof. At the end of that Labour Government, if the roof had not been replaced, the school had been rebuilt, and the only thing going through the roof was children’s attainment. We have a very proud record of achievement in those 13 years.
There is still no certainty about how Merseyside will be affected by the Government’s proposed changes to the national funding formula. The Government continue to add to that uncertainty, despite the written ministerial statement on 21 July that the Secretary of State would set out proposals in Parliament in the early autumn. The Secretary of State still has not done that. It is important that the Government ensure that schools do not lose out as a result of changes in the funding formula.
Although the Labour party supports a fair national funding formula, we believe that it should be achieved by investing in all our schools, rather than by taking money away from some schools to give to others. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that school budgets will fall by 8% over the course of this Parliament, as the budget was protected in cash terms, rather than in real terms, meaning that the schools budget is at the mercy of rising pressures and pupil numbers, and the impact of inflation on its true value.
With inflation today rising to a two-year high and many predicting it will rise again in the wake of Brexit—particularly a chaotic Brexit without single market access, which is the course we are pursuing—schools are facing real-term cuts. We have already warned that the Government’s proposed new school funding formula will hit areas such as Liverpool. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) pointed out, Liverpool has seen a 65% cut in core funding. Labour supports fairer funding, but areas such as Liverpool are likely to take the big hit. There should be mitigation in the system to protect school standards and ensure that a loss of funding does not hamstring local areas.
If the northern powerhouse strategy is to mean anything, it must enable local communities to tackle the root causes of low attainment and it must improve special educational needs provision, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. However, there was no SEN provision whatever in the Government’s recent schools paper, which included grammar schools. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) pointed out that we need SEN provision within our school system, particularly for people with autism. If the Government were really committed to fair funding, they would invest in schools instead of cutting schools’ budgets for the first time in nearly two decades.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on a terrific speech and on getting the subject on the agenda. I also congratulate Mayor Anderson, who appointed a commission for the city. We welcome, in principle, the introduction of the Liverpool challenge, and I hope the Minister matches our welcome.
The shadow Secretary of State has often mentioned how effective the London challenge was and how it provides a model for steps we could take to improve schools, with a focus on investment, leadership and collaboration. It would definitely be good to praise the initiative, which shows how Labour, in Labour areas, is taking steps to improve schools for all children, while the Government are pushing grammar schools, which would cause most children in our communities to lose out, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle.
I remember the introduction of the Manchester challenge in 2008. That was cut when the coalition Government came into power, because of austerity. The reason that the London challenge was successful and improved schools right across the region in which we currently sit was that it lasted for longer and more money was put behind it. The outcomes showed that we can improve every area of the country if we match that provision.
Labour has called for more powers to be developed in local areas to help to tackle educational underperformance. The elected metro mayor of Liverpool would be a good place to start. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), but he says that if he is elected as Liverpool’s metro mayor next May—and I hope he will be—he will start with one hand behind his back because of the current powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby talked eloquently about the principle of subsidiarity. The Government seem to have nationalised the school system and privatised it at the same time. Today, the BBC is showing that the Government are taking away councils’ powers to set their own standards for maintained schools. That is a ridiculous system. Subsidiarity tells us that the best decisions are made close to the ground by the people who need to be involved. Labour will go back to that principle when we form a Government.
Peter Dowd
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are well and truly supportive of subsidiarity when it comes to Europe and Britain, but that they take a different view of Westminster and the regions?
Mike Kane
It is astonishing to think of the work that the Liverpool and Manchester city regions have done over the last few years—a devolved spatial strategy, business rates retention, a devolved skills strategy, a devolved housing strategy and devolved health and criminal justice strategies in Manchester—and yet for whatever reason we cannot seem to devolve the schools system. We already have regional Ofsted quality inspectors, so it is not beyond the wit of man to get a proper deal in place so that local politicians have more say and can help to improve standards.
The Education and Adoption Act 2016 goes in the opposite direction, further centralising powers in Whitehall and fragmenting our schools system, rather than giving local areas the powers and responsibilities to ensure a step change in our schools’ results. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, said that secondary education in our cities, particularly in Liverpool, is going into reverse, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) alluded to.
The chief inspector of schools also called on local politicians to act urgently and champion their schools. How do we do that? How do we show leadership? My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby and for Bootle, and others, have championed those schools, but there should be powers as well. It is not the first time that the chief inspector of schools has highlighted concerns about secondary education in the north of England. In his annual report last December, he described his alarm over the emerging educational divide between north and south.
Turning to early years funding, it is clear that the Government’s proposals to offer 30 hours of free childcare a week are unravelling. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) highlighted, this is the most critical time. In theory, a 30-hour free childcare entitlement would see a welcome reduction in childcare costs for families. However, it is clear that the Government’s reforms are risking the sustainability of early education providers and the quality of provision available.
We have seen the decimation of Sure Start units in our cities and, currently, 750 nursery providers across the country are under threat. Many providers are unsure how they will meet their financial and statutory commitments, which is unsurprising given that their situation was precarious even before the proposals were announced. Freedom of information requests reveal that nearly 75% of councils have been given funding levels over the past five years that have failed to keep pace with inflation.
Figures published by the Department for Education in its consultation on the new funding formula state that about 40 local authorities face further falls in rates. As a result, hundreds of nurseries across the country are publicly expressing their fears, with a comprehensive survey from the Pre-school Learning Alliance showing that 750 providers fear being put out of business by the current Government plans. That would be a disaster for areas such as Merseyside. Maintained nursery schools account for many of those providers, as they have had no supplementary funding guaranteed beyond two years as outlined by the Government. The Minister should take this opportunity to end the anxiety and uncertainty that exists for many childcare providers by offering the extra financial support that will allow them to cope with the pressures created by the Government’s new funding formula.
In conclusion, Labour remains fully committed to ensuring that all our young people are given the opportunity to succeed on whatever educational path they choose, and that their opportunities are based on what they aspire to, not on what they can afford.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this debate. I am sure he will agree that all of us in this room share the same ambition to see a country that works for everyone, in which all schools improve and every child has the opportunity to go to a good school and to fulfil their potential.
I welcome the shadow Minister to his post. This is our first debate together in Westminster, and I am sure there will be many more such occasions, with him remaining firmly on that side. Over the last six years, 600,000 new school places have been created. We have spent £5 billion on creating those new places, and we have committed a further £7 billion over the next period to create another 600,000 school places. There are 15,000 more teachers today than there were in 2010. There are 456,000 teachers in our schools, a record number. We are spending £1.3 billion in the next period, across four bursaries, to attract the best graduates into teaching and we are spending £40 billion on schools, which is a record high. Of course, all that can happen only if we have a strong economy and proper stewardship of public finances. We are addressing the historical unfairness of the school funding system. We have consulted on the principles of a national funding formula and we will move to the next stage in the autumn.
I have had the opportunity to visit probably more than 400 schools across the country over the last 12 years, and I am convinced that there are two components without which a school cannot be great. The first, of course, is high-quality teaching and leadership. A supply of high-quality teachers is needed at all levels, and we are continuing to focus on recruiting the best graduates, particularly in subjects such as science, maths and foreign languages, with the generous bursaries that I mentioned. We are ensuring that leaders have access to high-quality leadership development training, including through national professional qualifications, and we are introducing a new teaching and leadership innovation fund worth £75 million over three years. Thanks to the hard work of teachers and the reforms we have introduced over the last six years, there are now more than 1.4 million more pupils in good and outstanding schools than there were in 2010.
The second component needed for a great school is a stretching and knowledge-based curriculum. The national curriculum focuses on the key knowledge that schools should teach. It has been benchmarked against the highest-performing education systems in the world and will enable pupils to acquire a secure understanding of the key knowledge they need to go on to the next stage of their education, to contribute to our culture and to participate fully in our society.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned careers guidance. The Careers & Enterprise Company is working with local enterprise partnerships and with schools to boost employer engagement and help schools with their careers advice. The Careers & Enterprise Company’s enterprise adviser network allows it to share best practice—he asked about this—through all regions, particularly in disadvantaged and rural areas of the south-west and north-west.
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask how the new schools funding formula will affect schools in Liverpool and the Greater Merseyside area, and we are firmly committed to introducing a fair national funding formula for schools and high needs from 2018-19 onwards. We are taking the time to ensure that the formula is right. We have protected the core schools budget in real terms so that as pupil numbers increase, so will the amount of money for our schools. We are launching the second stage of the consultation in the autumn. At that stage we can say what the funding impact will be for schools in all areas.
The Government are also committed to protecting pupil premium rates for the duration of this Parliament. Schools in Liverpool are receiving more than £30 million this year through that funding stream to support the attainment of the most disadvantaged pupils.
Stephen Twigg
I was recently at Our Lady and St Swithin’s Catholic Primary School in Croxteth in my constituency. One issue raised there was the impact of the provision of free school meals across key stage 1, which is resulting in fewer parents informing the school that their child would have been entitled to free school meals anyway. There is therefore a decline in pupil premium figures. Is the Minister familiar with that? If so, what are the Government doing about it?
Mr Gibb
We often hear that, and we are encouraging schools to encourage parents to register for free school meals, even though their child gets a free school meal anyway, so that their school does not lose the funding.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned St Aloysius Catholic Primary School and funding for children with special educational needs. We have committed to reforming the funding system for pupils with high needs by introducing a national funding formula from 2018 for high needs as well as for schools. In 2017 we have protected local authorities so that no area will see a reduction in its high needs funding, which is in the context of our overall protection for the core schools budget in this Parliament. We have allocated an additional £93 million of high-needs funding for 2016-17.
Mr George Howarth
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My key point is that under the current arrangement schools are getting an allowance even if they have no children with special educational needs, whereas schools that have large and growing numbers of children with special educational needs do not get enough from the allowance to cover their additional costs.
Mr Gibb
I hope all those issues will be addressed by the reforms to our funding system.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) mentioned funding for apprenticeships. We are spending £2.5 billion on apprenticeships by 2020, which is double the 2010-11 budget in cash terms, and we will top up employer levy contributions by 10% and provide 90% of the funding for employers that want to buy more apprenticeships.
It is important that children get the best start in life, which is why the Government are spending an additional £1 billion a year on the early years free entitlement, including £300 million a year to increase the national average funding rate. The Government are working to ensure that early years funding is distributed fairly and transparently throughout the country. On 22 September we concluded the consultation on the fairest way to distribute early years funding, and the proposals included a new approach, namely an early years national funding formula. The consultation has now closed and we are analysing responses. We will respond in the autumn.
Stephen Twigg
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I realise that time is tight. Will he address the specific issue of nursery schools? I think he will agree that nursery schools often provide a fantastic start for children, particularly in some of the most deprived neighbourhoods.
Mr Gibb
Yes. I have been addressing that by talking about the extra money for early years. As part of the consultation, we released indicative funding rates for local authorities and indicative and average hourly funding rates for providers in each local authority area. Based on our proposal, 75% of local authority areas stand the gain funding. The indicative rates show that the impact of the proposals in the Merseyside region will be mixed. It is therefore right that we look at each local authority area, rather than the region overall.
The Government are providing supplementary funding for maintained nursery schools for at least two years, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We know that maintained nursery schools bear costs over and above other providers because of their structure, and many also provide high-quality early education to disadvantaged children. The additional funding will provide much-needed stability to the nursery sector. We will be consulting on the future of maintained nursery schools in due course.
Thanks to the academies programme, schools have been released from the constraints that too often inhibited great teaching. The autonomy provided by the structural reforms has freed schools to innovate and pursue improved evidence-based teaching methods. Rather than a centralising approach, this is actually the ultimate in devolution.
Headteachers and other system leaders have seized this opportunity. As of the beginning of this month, there are 5,758 open academies and 345 open free schools, university technical colleges and studio schools. About a fifth of primary schools and two thirds of secondary schools are now academies. As the Secretary of State said to the Select Committee on Education in September, the Government want to see all schools become academies over time, and it is our hope and expectation that schools will want to continue to take advantage of the benefits that academisation can bring both to their own school and to others in the local area and throughout the country. We will continue to convert all schools that are failing to deliver an acceptable standard of education.
Mr Gibb
I am hesitant to give way because I have literally two minutes to go and I want to respond to some of the other points. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
We also want to see good and outstanding schools choosing academy status so they can benefit from the freedoms associated with it. We will be building capacity across the country. We are also working with the archdiocese of Liverpool and the diocese of Liverpool to ensure that there are rapid improvements in other schools, such as the Academy of St Francis of Assisi in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. The Education and Adoption Act 2016 strengthens the Department’s powers to ensure that every failing school, whether maintained or an academy, receives the support it needs to improve. The Secretary of State will not hesitate to use these powers so that underperforming schools and academies are swiftly turned around.
Let me conclude by briefly talking about further education. A strong further education system is essential to ensuring that everyone in our society is empowered to succeed. We need to equip FE colleges to be high-status institutions that can confer similar advantages to traditional academic institutions.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Ministry of Defence Future Accommodation Model
(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 Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Ministry of Defence’s future accommodation model.
It is an honour to have you in the Chair for this debate on a most important subject, Mrs Moon. I asked for this debate to bring clarity and reassurance to our armed forces personnel and their families about their future accommodation provision. There is a Government commitment in the armed forces covenant to providing personnel and their families with good-quality accommodation, in the right location and at a reasonable price. I receive correspondence daily from families who are deeply anxious about the direction of the future accommodation model—FAM. There is a strongly held view among military families from every rank, in every service, that the Ministry of Defence intends to allow the present system, and its poor provision of existing service family accommodation, to degrade, so that the options put forward by FAM will seem less unpalatable.
The stated reason for looking at a new, more modern accommodation model is that service personnel want more choice over where, how and with whom they live, and greater support for those who would like to buy a new home. According to the MOD, FAM
“is aiming to provide a flexible system that meets different needs at different times—not dictated by rank”—
rank is not a factor now—
“age or marriage.”
Given those stated aims, which are laudable and forward-thinking for the modern family, will the Minister tell us why the MOD is not simply looking to expand the accessibility of service family accommodation—SFA—to that new, wider service personnel audience? The MOD states that FAM is designed to save costs, because the way accommodation is now provided means that there have to be a large number of vacant homes at any one time to allow for rotation, which means greater costs for the MOD, but in the same breath, it states that FAM will not reduce the total pot of money used to subsidise housing.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate; given the interest in it, perhaps a longer debate would have been worth while. She makes her case well, and I invite her to extend her view to cover veterans. In the light of her interest in the military covenant, will she challenge the Minister on that angle, too?
Mrs Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. That is a wider debate; we will see whether we can persuade the authorities to allow us to have that wider conversation.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the key problem is the price that service families have to pay for their accommodation? It has been creeping up and up, and I am not aware—perhaps she can enlighten me—whether the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has factored that into its annual determination.
Mrs Trevelyan
I am afraid that I am not privy to the details of the pay review body’s work, but perhaps the Minister will answer that question for us later. I would also be grateful if he set out the present annual net cost of the SFA offer, to give the military families watching, who are very concerned, some idea of the funding available if they have to work with one of the proposed new options. We need to look starkly at what the FAM proposes, in terms of realistic housing accessibility from the private rental and purchase housing markets; realistic cost implications for families; and the real impact of the military community being broken up, leaving families unsupported at times of deployment.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
This is a huge issue for military families and serving people in particular. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not get this right, it will have a catastrophic effect on our retention figures? We will find even more people leaving the service, which would be pretty awful, to say the least.
Mrs Trevelyan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One key reason why I ask the Minister to reconsider the FAM is that it is unlikely to save the MOD money, because of the national housing shortage, and is likely to create a massive retention risk to our already undermanned and overstretched armed forces. Will the Minister tell the House exactly what he believes the existing housing offer costs the MOD in total, after rents received?
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this wonderful debate, which is timely and important. Does she agree that one of the challenges is the inconsistency in the quality of accommodation? New accommodation in Stafford is extraordinary, but if it is made subject to a market rent, it will not be affordable to most service personnel.
Mrs Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for raising one of the key questions. One of the great anxieties that families come to me with is the fear that the realities of private rental markets will be too costly to cope with, both for the MOD and individual families.
Will the Minister tell us what ongoing saving he wants to see in order to justify the vast upheaval and risks that bringing in the FAM would cause? Failing to meet our armed forces covenant commitment on housing by inventing a set of proposals that military families are appalled by, rather than extending the existing imperfect but workable service family accommodation model, will result in a mass exodus of experienced and highly trained military personnel.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend visited RAF Odiham not long ago. I am sure that she will recall that 95 bed spaces have been condemned there, and 97% of the 674 still available are grade 4—the worst-quality accommodation. Does she agree that that is a false economy, because so many spaces are no longer being used and are no longer sought after?
Mrs Trevelyan
I recall our visit to RAF Odiham well; we were frightened nearly to death in a Chinook. Getting housing provision right—particularly behind the wire, as at Odiham—is critical to keeping those highly trained personnel. An ambitious young Army officer said to me just the other day:
“Is FAM aiming to encourage home ownership, with tools such as Help to Buy, or force personnel into home ownership? If it’s the latter, that just isn’t going to work.”
Let us turn to the FAM survey, which was apparently sent out to all serving personnel—some 190,000 men and women. First, I ask the Minister why that survey was not made mandatory, as surveys are a great deal of the time; there was a recent mandatory survey on the language skill sets of serving personnel. Anyone would think that the MOD was happy to mandate, where that suited its agenda, but that for the FAM, despite housing being a vital component of the offer for our armed forces and their families, a lower response rate better suited the MOD’s case for driving change, regardless of military families’ complex housing needs and views.
Moreover, more than 40,000 people have been excluded from answering the survey because they are deemed to be a member of a protected group, including the special forces, the military provost guard service, those based in Northern Ireland, those on full-time reserve service contracts, those under 18 and unspecified others working with those groups. Apparently the MOD will ask their opinion separately, but that has not yet happened, and those groups quite rightly feel more than a little aggrieved that their views have not yet been sought. Their families are living with uncertainty about the future of SFA, just like all the others. Will the Minister set on the record when those 40,000 or more personnel will get their chance to have their say?
Secondly, of those who received the survey, many were unable to access it because their service number, which was being used as their access token, failed to be recognised by the survey designers’ coding. Will the Minister confirm how many personnel fell through the cracks as a result of that failure? The message received by personnel was:
“If your service ID is rejected during login it means you will be unable to complete the FAM survey, because either it is not a valid armed forces service ID or you are part of a group that is not covered by the survey.”
Unsurprisingly, at that point many personnel stopped trying and simply gave up. I would find it quite insulting to be told that my service ID was not valid, and I know that many of those who put their life on the line for us all did, too. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified how many tried to access the survey but could not get in, and how many started it but failed to complete it because, as one engineer said to me,
“the whole survey just seemed like they had made up their minds that there will be change and we’ll have to lump it.”
Thirdly, many were put off from doing the survey because, as one nurse put it:
“‘This is a completely anonymous survey, please use your service number to log in’ doesn’t make me feel secure about speaking out.”
By my maths, if the Department has recorded 27,997 completed submissions, that is about a 14% return. If that is to be the basis of the evidence, we need to look closely at the questions that were and were not asked. Here we get to a key problem with the survey, and the Minister’s clarification on this point today would be helpful in reducing the sense of fait accompli that so many service families have shared with me. The survey that personnel saw on screen gave four choices; SFA remaining was not there as a fifth choice. Much later in the survey, question 24 asked:
“If SFA were available to you with the same cost as the renting package, would you want to live in SFA instead?”
That was not mandatory or part of the options offered for the FAM. As one pilot said to me,
“we were annoyed that there was no option to keep SFA, forcing us to tick another option. In a few years, when this goes ahead, they will say ‘you asked for this, look at the survey results’”.
It turns out that those who failed to get past the service ID challenge, but then nagged the team running the FAM survey, eventually received an email that asked
“which of the potential new options”
for the FAM
“do you think you would go for & why? Or would you still want to live in SFA? And why?”
If we are to give any credence to future decisions taken on a housing offer that moves away from SFA, it is vital that we are clear about who replied to which questions. A rifleman asked me whether the aim of the survey was simply to justify the dismantling of SFA, and said that to claim otherwise would be a lie, as the survey would have asked wider questions if its aim was not to justify the dismantling. Perhaps the Minister can reassure that young man and the other 196,000 personnel on that point and say that data from the survey will not be used as the basis for dismantling SFA, as so few serving personnel have been asked whether SFA is a model that they would like continued.
The Army Families Federation’s “Big Survey” report on the future of military housing highlights the critical importance of SFA in the offer; only 22% of those surveyed said that they would definitely remain in the Army if SFA was reduced and a rental allowance was offered in its place. How much has the MOD paid to Deloitte to create and manage the survey? Did Deloitte or the MOD design the impractical proposed solutions, which bear little relation to how most of the military family actually live? Will the Minister confirm whether any working group with representatives from family federations, service personnel, spouses from all ranks, SSAFA, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and industry experts was set up? Is FAM and its four options—single living accommodation without family; renting near work; owning near work; or owning away from work, and therefore renting too—what such a broad group would have come up with?
As one naval wife said to me:
“Filling out the survey just feels like MOD justifying its forced changes and we are some part of sanctioning that. That’s why I haven’t filled it out”.
Although our Navy personnel are more likely to own their own home than those from the other services, because they are away from their families for six to nine months at a time, even the Naval Families Federation survey on FAM indicated clearly that more than 50% would prefer to live in SFA than receive a rental allowance.
An RAF wife who has moved her family seven times in 15 years highlighted just why the flexibility of SFA is so important to retention:
“Many occasions we have been posted with less than a month to move. With having to look for work, schools and everything else they want to put the pressure on me to look for a home? We don’t know the area and rely heavily on the knowledge that a quarter is in a good position with community support from other service families. The new FAM will isolate us all from that network, as well as putting strain on our family life. Seems as though the armed forces are losing the one thing that appealed to families and that was that they would look after us.”
The RAF Families Federation survey on FAM supports that family’s view, with 95% of those surveyed saying that being able to move with the serving person and live together as a family is important, and 63% highlighting the value of the accommodation being sourced and provided by their employer.
Another part of the jigsaw is the question of the footprint strategy that the MOD will publish shortly. Part of the DIO’s remit was to reduce the built footprint of MOD assets by 30% by 2020. That is 30% of all property by square footage. Although the SFA portfolio was sold off to Annington Homes back in 1996, the leaseback arrangement set in place means that the DIO keeps all the maintenance and improvement responsibility for as long as it keeps these properties on its books. The MOD negotiated with Annington Homes a 58% rent discount on all the properties, which will come to an end in 2021.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been present to hear the whole speech.
Jim Shannon
I was chairing another meeting. I have come straight from it, Madam Chair.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
It is generally accepted that interventions should be from Members who are present for the whole speech. Is the hon. Lady happy to give way?
Jim Shannon
I asked to intervene because I am concerned that in Northern Ireland the MOD might be demolishing some of its houses in Ballykinler. The hon. Lady is being very constructive in addressing the issue; we need to see the same in Northern Ireland. Instead of demolition, there should be retention for the future.
Mrs Trevelyan
We are looking at the issue in Northern Ireland as well.
Will the Minister give us details of any negotiations that have started with Annington Homes on a new rental framework, which would ensure that a continued level of subsidised rents could be provided to military families? My concern is that the MOD intends to hand back the bulk of the homes, and then allow Annington to rent them to service families on a private rental market arrangement, whether behind the wire or not. That would meet the 30% reduction target, but would no doubt do nothing to reduce the overall costs of subsidising housing—that is, if the MOD actually intends to price the FAM offer at a level that families find acceptable, and that allows them to choose to remain in the armed forces.
I hope that the Minister can persuade me that I am wrong, but my deep concern is that the DIO was set a financial rationalisation target without any reference to the retention risk to our human capital, and that no one in the MOD is balancing out the potential financial savings of bringing in FAM with losing the security and support of SFA. In my opinion, and that of many of our leading military leaders, our armed forces personnel are working at unsustainable levels of undermanning. If we reduce SFA—with its security, safety and community for families, and with the practicalities it offers, despite the shortcomings of the present maintenance contracts for short notice postings and so on—we risk losing many experienced personnel to the private sector, and we open up a long-term retention problem, thereby reducing the effectiveness, flexibility and world-renowned reputation of the British military.
Mrs Trevelyan
I will not, as I do not have time.
If what I just described were to happen, it would have financial and military implications for a generation. The British people would never want to hear that the MOD had put cost saving over operational effectiveness, most especially for our human capital: the men and women who put their lives on the line for us.
The MOD’s strategic defence and security review 2015 states that Joint Force 2025 and Britain’s defence will continue to depend on the commitment, professionalism and skills of our people. Recruiting, retaining and developing the right people is therefore a top priority for the MOD. The SDSR talks about a new accommodation offer to help more service personnel to live in private accommodation or own their own homes. Perhaps the Minister can answer the question that goes to the heart of whether the Government believe in the armed forces covenant commitment, which is summed up by a highly qualified and valued member of our armed forces— I have the greatest honour of being his voice today:
“Is the implementation of FAM a deliberate attempt to destroy and de-professionalise our armed forces? Given that housing is a tiny proportion of the MOD budget, why get rid of the SFA, which means so much to so many?”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) on securing this debate. I know that she, like me, cares deeply about the wellbeing of our personnel. Her constructive contribution to the Public Accounts Committee report will help significantly to improve service accommodation. She asked an awful lot of very detailed questions. I can assure her that I will not be able to cover them all in the 12 and a half minutes remaining. I shall therefore start, if I may, with an apology, and an assurance that for any detailed questions I cannot cover—there will be many—I will write to her. I appeal to my hon. Friends present that, if they can limit their interventions, I may be able to attempt to respond to the debate.
I am not going to pretend that the Government record on accommodation has been an unqualified success in recent years. It has not. Issues with CarillionAmey have been well documented, not least by the PAC. Things are improving, but there remains much to do. Like my hon. Friend, I am absolutely determined to see this through and to ensure that improvements to our service family accommodation are carried through.
Nevertheless, the focus of the debate is not on the past but on the future. As our troops return from Germany and we look to rationalise our estate, we have realised that there is an unprecedented opportunity to do more for our people—an opportunity to give them greater stability, so that they do not feel they are being asked to up sticks at a moment’s notice.
Mark Lancaster
Our future accommodation model is part of the mechanism for achieving this goal of greater stability. Its benefits are not well understood, so I would like to use today’s debate to explain why I believe it will be a vast improvement on what has gone before.
First, it will be fairer. As the Public Accounts Committee acknowledged, the current model has failed to move with the times. Let me give just one example. A married senior officer will be assigned a four-bedroom home even if they have no children or other dependents, and will usually pay just £350 to £450 a month for it. By contrast, an unmarried member of the junior ranks, with a partner of 10 years and two children, is entitled to nothing more than a single bedroom in a block. If they move out to the private sector to live with their family, it could cost them well over £1,000 a month. I am determined to make the model based on need, not rank, and I am determined that it should reflect modern society.
Secondly, the model will be more flexible. Times have changed. The sort of arrangements people were happy with when I joined the Army in 1988 are no longer applicable today. Some want to live closer to their spouse’s workplace. Some want to live among the civilian community. Some want to own their own home. Some, who are single, want to share with a friend or get on the housing ladder. Currently, however, our personnel have to like it or lump it. If they choose to go it alone, we cut the purse strings and they get nothing—they get no assistance, whether financial or otherwise, from the MOD. That simply is not fair and does not make business sense to a Department looking to release parts of its estate and expand in other areas. Why spend on new accommodation if it is not even wanted in some parts?
In future, we are going to give service personnel the choice of who they live with, where they live and what sort of home they live in. No longer will it be a one-size-fits-all model. We will now support servicemen and women who want to live in the private sector by subsidising rent, taking account of the geographic differences in rent when they are required to move. Alternatively, we will help them to buy a home. We have already made a start on that through our forces Help to Buy scheme, which the Government have extended to 2018.
My last point is that our future model will be affordable. I do not mean that it is an exercise in indiscriminate cost cutting, but the current regime is characterised by chronic wastefulness. To answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed directly, we spend about £1 billion on our accommodation and get about £200 million back in charges.
One in five service homes is empty at any one time to ensure, as I have described, that the right home is always available to the right rank. We spend £2 for every £1 of subsidy our personnel receive. We spend about £1 billion in total on accommodation, but nearly a quarter of personnel do not benefit from that. With the majority of our accommodation already owned by third parties and the cost to the MOD linked to market rents, costs are set to rise, but we can do better, not least because the money can be recycled back into the defence budget.
On the subject of affordability and efficiency, some are concerned that any savings we make could be undermined by a lower rate of retention—my hon. Friend made that point—and by dissatisfied personnel choosing to leave the armed forces earlier. In response to that, I would say that this programme is about finding the best way to make things better for our men and women. It is not about weighing up any savings we might make in accommodation against the cost to retention. We hope that our changes would diminish that risk, rather than exacerbate it. We are planning to begin piloting the future accommodation model towards the end of 2018.
Let me make three things clear. First, we are not getting rid of all service family accommodation. We know that there are benefits to the existing system—not least the sense of community it generates. In some areas, the absence of a significant rental market would make the system’s removal unworkable. In other areas I have visited, such as Ludgershall on Salisbury plain, we will be building new service family accommodation due to an increased demand as a result of the Army coming back from Germany. If we plan to scrap all service family accommodation, why are we building new service family accommodation? These are the sorts of myths that we have to try to tackle. I recognise that part of the problem has been the communication piece, and I hope that this debate will begin to address that.
What is clear is that the solution needs to be tailored to each location. What might work in London will not work in Benbecula. The amount of service family accommodation retained will differ from location to location, based on demand, operational constraints and achieving the best value for money, but reducing service family accommodation will give us more flexibility and allow us to support more personnel to live how they want to live. We are looking at options that would not guarantee service family accommodation for everyone who wants it, but that is exactly the case today. I cannot guarantee service family accommodation for everyone who wants it, which is why we have other ways of providing accommodation. I can guarantee that we would support those personnel to find and live in a home.
Secondly, we cannot take these decisions without listening to what our people want. That is why we have been consulting extensively with service personnel, taking on board the findings of the Public Accounts Committee report and the Families Federation accommodation surveys, which also include our own survey. My hon. Friend mentioned that, and I will come back to her in detail on some of the questions she asked about the survey. Personally, I do not think that 28,000 responses is a particularly poor response rate. If Members spoke to Ipsos MORI, it would say that the surveys are based on the percentage of people who reply. The statistical analysis can then be used to form the opinion, in the same way that we have opinion polls for general elections, although they were not particularly successful.
To expand on the subject of our survey, some people have suggested that it was written in a leading way, to draw people down a specific path. I would like to put that notion to rest by saying that that was unequivocally not the case. It was in fact written in consultation with Ipsos MORI and Defence Statistics with the aim of producing an unbiased set of questions, as all surveys worth the paper they are written on should be. Clearly my hon. Friend does not think the survey was unbiased, and I take that on board, but that was definitely the objective. The survey’s purpose was to understand people’s choices when presented with future accommodation model options. It also included a question asking whether respondents would prefer to remain in service family accommodation, but the programme is not about the future accommodation model versus service family accommodation; it is about coming up with a more flexible model that suits the varied needs of all.
Thirdly, at this point I should be clear that no final decisions have been made. Nothing is set in stone. The whole purpose of the consultation at this point is to offer a series of options, to listen to our service personnel and to try to find a model that suits them. It is all about putting our people first.
We have had a well-informed and valuable debate today. We all share the same fundamental desire to ensure that those who serve us are well provided for. The views of my hon. Friends—several have contributed—and those of our constituents will continue to shape our plans, but I have no doubt that the future accommodation model will provide our people with greater choice and greater stability. The old system is outdated. We are updating it so that it is fit to meet the needs and expectations of modern families in the 21st century. I am absolutely determined to deliver a system of accommodation for our service personnel that is fit for the 21st century and, crucially, for them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Ministry of Defence’s future accommodation model.
South-west Agriculture and Fishing
(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 (in the Chair)
Before I call Scott Mann to move the motion, I remind Members that this debate will end at 5.41 pm. If Members wish to speak in the debate, could they please stand after Scott Mann has sat down so that I can be sure who is here to speak and who is here to intervene? I will give priority to Members from the south-west.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on agriculture and fishing in the south west.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and I am grateful to be able to introduce this debate today. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on her appointment in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Our farmers work incredibly hard in the south-west. They are the beating heart of our economy. I, like many, campaigned to leave the European Union to help our farmers and fishermen get a better deal. I believe that they have suffered under the EU and that Brexit will offer them more freedom and prosperity. South-west farmers manage 38% of Britain’s dairy herd and directly support over 8,000 jobs, with thousands more employed in the wider agricultural sector. The farmers and fishermen in the south-west will be directly affected by Brexit— I believe for the better.
There will be big benefits for fishermen in leaving the EU. They have suffered under the EU and its common fisheries policy and taking control of our territorial waters will only benefit. They get a very thin slice of the pie when it comes to quotas and that must change.
For farmers, the situation is slightly different and it is right that we try to offer them confidence as we head towards the exit door. They rely on the EU for farm subsidies and for tariff-free trade. Importantly, they also count on the EU for foreign labour, which is a particularly sensitive issue. On one hand, farmers say they want to continue having migrant workers; on the other hand, millions of people are calling for lower immigration. It is imperative that we strike the right balance.
In place of the EU’s common agricultural and fisheries policies, I would like to see a British agricultural policy and a British fisheries policy. The National Farmers Union would like a domestic agricultural policy that establishes a stable consensus on what farming can deliver for the economy, consumers and the environment. It is imperative that we continue to guarantee farm subsidies and I was pleased that the Chancellor has done so until 2020, which gives south-west farmers some much needed certainty. Farm payments must be processed faster than currently—I have had so many farmers complain to me about the Rural Payments Agency and the penalties that are imposed on them without any prior communication or justification.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the south-west. My constituency, Taunton Deane in Somerset, is very reliant on farming. Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers do not want their livelihoods to be jeopardised during the two-year period of negotiations on how to leave the EU? They are asking for leeway, and whether we could still remain within the single market during that period.
Scott Mann
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I will come on to the single market later in my speech. We need to be on the side of farmers, not working against them. A better subsidy system can certainly be achieved in the short term to install confidence.
We need actively to promote British produce at home and abroad. Leaving the single market is a fantastic opportunity to turn our attention to food producers and to become less reliant on imports, which can leave us at the mercy of currency markets. By making our agricultural sector much more diverse and profitable, Britain’s food chains could become more sustainable and less reliant on imports.
One avenue open to the Government is food procurement for our public services. Out of the EU, the Government could choose British food produce to supply our civil service, our schools and our armed forces. A policy and ethos of British food for British institutions would help our farming sector grow and be at the very heart of Government.
It is imperative that our farmers have access to labour. Certainly in the short and medium term, our farmers need access to workers from the EU. Just like British workers, EU migrants work incredibly hard—this debate is a good opportunity to highlight the contribution that they make to the economy in the south-west. According to statistics from the National Farmers Union, approximately 57% of workers in the meat sector and 40% in the egg sector are from within the EU. As we move forward, it is important that we balance the flow of migrant seasonal workers with the need to control immigration. I believe we can do both out of the EU. The National Farmers Union is in the process of drawing up its Brexit policy. One of its suggestions is the introduction of a seasonal agricultural permit scheme that would grant 12-month visas.
A British agricultural policy should champion agricultural employment, with joined-up initiatives from Whitehall for young and unemployed people to help them find work on farms. With such a policy we could end the nonsense of the three-crop rule and farmers being unable to bury their dead stock.
I would like a British fisheries policy that tears up the EU’s awful common fisheries policy. Restricted by the 12-mile limit, our fishermen have been treated extremely unfairly. It is time we addressed that and took back control of our territorial waters. Our south-west fishermen have felt like second-class citizens for far too long. We absolutely must stop that. British fishermen must be given priority, in parallel with the UK Government overseeing the management and conservation of fish stocks and quotas.
Under a British fisheries policy, Britain could extend its exclusive economic zone from 12 to 200 miles from the shore, as specified by the UN international convention on the law of the sea. With those waters, Britain could absolutely have control over its quotas, permits and conservation. Currently, the fishermen in the south-west are getting a very raw deal. For example, of the 4,500 tonnes of cod that can be landed, our fisherman only get 8%, while French boats get 74%; and of the 7,200 tonnes of haddock that can been landed, we only get 10%, while the French receive 67%. Those are not isolated examples—the same can be said for pollock, plaice, sole, hake and whiting.
Away from the sea, it is vital that we support our fishing communities in Cornwall, the south-west and around the rest of the UK. I have already had assurances from the fisheries Minister and his Department that they will offer support for fishing communities, and I hope the Minister will give me the same assurance today.
One big issue for fishing in the south-west is whether we allow European boats in UK waters and vice versa. There is definitely a balance that needs to be struck, as fish migrate around the coastline. With up to 80% of the fish caught in the south-west being exported to EU countries, it is important that we strike that balance, so that exports are not harmed and we maintain a good relationship with our EU counterparts. That said, our ability to strike free trade deals will also open up global markets for our high-quality shellfish and wet fish.
We need our farmers and fishermen in the south-west to have confidence in the process as we withdraw ourselves from the European Union. In the short term, we need to build confidence as an existing member. In the medium term, we need to lay out how we will secure and enhance our fishing and farming sectors. In the long term, we need policies in place that are more democratic and supportive, where our fishing and farming voices can be heard, and which are fully accountable to this place, Westminster, and not to Brussels.
There is so much potential for our farming and fishing sectors in the south-west. Over the next two years, I look forward to hearing how the Government plan to give a fairer deal and how we can grow our economy in the south-west as a result.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. Because of the number of Members who have indicated their wish to speak, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means I am imposing a time limit of four minutes on speeches by Back Benchers. If many interventions are made, I may have to reduce that limit.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I will endeavour to stick to that time limit, Mrs Moon.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this debate. As he rightly says, leaving the EU has massive potential implications for agriculture and fisheries. I was very pleased by the assurance given by the Secretary of State in the House last week, in response to my question, that she would guarantee the current standards in environmental protection, so I will put those issues to one side for a moment.
The hon. Gentleman pointed, very rightly, to the importance of free trade within the European Union to both our agricultural and fisheries sectors. We export almost 40% of our lamb to the rest of the EU. He mentioned that we export 80% of the fish caught off the south-west. In my view, the best shellfish, crab and lobster in the world comes from the coast around Devon and Cornwall, but sadly, most of it goes straight to markets in France and Spain. I was not surprised when I saw the headline in the Western Morning News this week, which made very clear that our farmers’ main priority in the whole debate is that we remain members of the single market.
My first question for the Minister, therefore, is whether she is committed, as her first priority for the UK, to remain as a member of the single market. That is vital not only for tariff-free trade, but for access to the important labour mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, on which a lot of our farming and food industry completely depends.
If the Minister and the Government are not to accord importance to staying in the single market, I would like to know why not. If, as seems to be the case, the Government have already given up any hope of staying in the single market because of their wrong-headed and self-damaging obsession with cutting migrant labour, what levels of tariffs would she expect to be imposed on the sorts of the goods that we have been talking about, both agricultural and from fisheries, and what level of damage does she anticipate that that will do to our farming and fisheries sectors?
We have heard worrying reports that the Secretary of State for International Trade wants us to leave the European customs union. That would be an absolute disaster for our agriculture and fisheries sectors, and hit our economy with a fall of 4.5% in our overall GDP and a far worse fall for agriculture and fisheries. Has the Minister assessed the impact that leaving the customs union would have on our fishing and farming sectors? I will also be grateful if she could give us some idea of the expected impact on consumer prices, and imported food prices in particular, not only from the collapse in the value of the pound owing to uncertainty about our access to the single market, but from the increased prices that west country consumers will pay for goods if we leave the European Union, or are outside the single market or, even worse, outside the customs union.
Finally, given the importance of all those questions to the future of the important sectors that we are discussing, will the Minister guarantee to publish a full cost-benefit analysis of the possible and potential options for our future relationship with the rest of Europe and the world, so that the public and Members of the House may make a considered judgment before we are asked to vote on anything? Does she agree that it would be absolutely unacceptable for the Government, without consulting Parliament, precipitately to invoke article 50 as soon as March before we have clear answers to those important questions on which the future of our farming and fishing industries depend?
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
I can make my points to the Minister short. On farming, may I first make a plea for any priority for domestic agriculture policy to include the concept of food security? Food security has been a principle much spoken of but rejected by successive Governments, including the one in which the preceding speaker, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), served so honourably and in such a distinguished capacity. However, food security is vital, and therefore a vital component of any domestic agriculture policy.
Equally importantly, it is also vital for us to promote our agriculture in a way that we have failed to do in recent decades. The Dairy Council is the organisation charged with the promotion of the health benefits of dairy products, but it is not charged with the kind of marketing and advertising function that we see in countries such as New Zealand. I therefore urge the Minister to take from the debate my suggestion, and that of many dairy farmers throughout the country, that we need an agency or organisation that is devoted to the activity of marketing and promoting the fantastic dairy products of this country. The Dairy Council is not an organisation that is suited to that end because it is based on a research function rather on a marketing one.
We need to get behind British agriculture; we need to promote and advertise it in a way that we have not for many years; and we need a domestic policy that prioritises food security and domestic production. We also need a policy that decides very quickly what we will and will not support by way of direct Government grant.
On fishing, my plea to the Minister is to let any policy we design be based on local, sustainable fishing fleets that support coastal communities. This is our opportunity to ensure that a domestic fishing industry revives in the coastal communities that have been so hard pressed in recent years. It is our opportunity to deploy intelligence and flexibility, and to do away with blanket bans—despite the plentifulness of certain species of fish in the Bristol channel, we have a ray ban, a spurdog ban and bans that fishermen local to the area know are not right or intelligent. Instead, such bans should be flexibly designed. Any policy must support the interests of those fragile coastal communities.
The key areas and priorities that I urge the Minister to take away, therefore, are promoting, getting behind and marketing our British agriculture; and support and sustenance for coastal communities and local, sustainable fishing fleets.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, Mrs Moon, to see you in the Chair.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing the debate. It will not surprise him to hear that I do not agree with him about the benefits of the vote on 23 June for British agriculture and fisheries. The food and farming sectors face very real threats from Brexit. I appreciate that there are opportunities too, but I am already worried about the extent to which people have seized on the idea of those opportunities, because to some extent they fly in the face of what we know to be the Government’s agenda. In particular, in the context of protecting the natural environment, the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, is already looking at the impact of Brexit on the managed landscape and the natural environment. Yes there are certainly opportunities to improve how we do things, but I am less than optimistic that those opportunities will be seized.
It is also important to stop using the European Union as an excuse for some of the deficiencies in policy. For example, the allocation of quotas between the smaller and larger fleets is to a large extent in the hands of the UK Government—the decision can already be made by them without the need for agreement with our European partners.
In the two and a half minutes I have left, I will talk about labour and workforce issues, and what restrictions on freedom of movement would mean for the sector. It has been estimated that 90% of British fruit, vegetables and salad are harvested by 60,000 to 70,000 seasonal migrant workers, many of whom come from the accession countries of eastern Europe. The vast majority come from other EU countries, and we need to answer the question of what would happen to the labour supply if we placed restrictions on freedom of movement, and whether it is something that can be dealt with through seasonal visas.
There is a fear that ill-thought-through restrictions on freedom of movement will mean that crops go unharvested, hitting food supplies, food production and farmers’ incomes, eventually putting them out of business. As we have heard, food sovereignty—food security—is a real issue in this country. At the moment, we produce less than 60% of the food that we eat, and 40% of the fruit and vegetables that we consume come from the EU. Things that can be grown here ought to be grown here, but that needs a supply of labour as well.
Last week, in Parliament I attended an interesting event organised by the Food and Drink Federation. Food manufacturers were talking about the impact of Brexit on them. I must admit that I had not realised the extent to which they depend on a skilled workforce from other European countries. They said that 27% of their workforce are non-UK EU citizens. Of course, some of those are at the lower end of the scale, filling the jobs that people perhaps do not want, or perhaps people are not prepared to work for below the living wage. Those businesses estimate that they will need 130,000 new skilled workers by 2024 and they were not confident that the Government’s existing policies on apprenticeships and on encouraging people to study the relevant subjects at university would pay off. They are already having difficulty recruiting and, understandably, their employees are already worried.
We had a debate in the main Chamber today about what will happen to EU migrants who are currently working in this country and whether they will be allowed to remain. What restrictions on freedom of movement will mean for both low and high-skill jobs is a real issue. I hope the Minister is discussing that with her colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union, the Home Office and the other Departments involved.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I congratulate and commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is my neighbour, on securing this important debate. Since the result on 23 June, I have met large groups of both fishermen and farmers, and although we all recognise that the journey ahead will not be easy or smooth, what they are asking for is quite straightforward and should easily be accommodated. Their priority is simply for experts in their sectors to be sat around the negotiating table so their expertise is fully understood and contributes to the debate about how we move forward beyond 2019.
Fishermen in the south-west ask that we finally recognise that fish stocks in the west of England are different from those in other parts of the UK, where fishermen target a particular catch. When fishermen in the west of England put their nets out, they often do not know what they are going to catch. It is a mixed fishery, and the quota system has struggled to recognise and accommodate that. Those fishermen ask that we properly recognise their challenge when it comes to fishing in a mixed fishery. They also ask that they get a fair share of the total allowable catch. We all understand and know about the weighting against UK fishermen. Fishermen in other European countries are able to catch a much larger share in UK waters than UK fishermen, who are sometimes allowed to catch as little as 11% of a particular species. UK fishermen are asking that that situation is made fair.
I turn now to what farmers and food producers are asking for. I understand that under current EU regulations, as my hon. Friend referred to, we in the United Kingdom are not able to tell our public sector organisations that they must prioritise buying British produce. Because of that legislation, and because those organisations are not allowed to choose British producers over those from other European countries, UK food producers potentially lose out on billions of pounds. It would be fantastic to know that, during the negotiation and as we move forward, the Government will lead the way in buying British wherever possible and do everything they can to ensure that the British public know where their food comes from and the farmer receives a fair price. That alone will help significantly to mitigate the challenge that farmers and food producers face.
Both farmers and fishermen have requested that the Government promote fishing and farming as worthwhile jobs with secure futures. Parents often do not see that fishing and farming have futures for their children, and we need to do much more to encourage young people to take up those skills and increasingly high-tech fishing and farming jobs.
Finally, however we manage the movement of labour from outside the UK’s borders into the UK, we must not impose unnecessary barriers to foreign workers. We must strike the right balance so that our farmers and fishermen continue to enjoy the skills and labour that are available from countries around the world.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is a fellow south-west MP, on securing this important debate. This is the second debate in just over a week to which south-west Members have turned up en masse—to stand up first for tourism and now for agriculture.
I cannot claim to have any significant commercial fishing in my patch, but I have a lot of farming and I know how concerning the impact of Brexit is to farmers. There has been a lot of uncertainty in the last few years, with low prices, the poorly administered basic payment scheme and the prospect of a significant change to the agricultural subsidy regime once we have left the EU and therefore the common agricultural policy. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that the current agricultural funding under pillar one of the CAP will be maintained until 2020, but despite that commitment the UK Government will spend less on agricultural subsidy because we currently get such a bad deal from the CAP. That must be music to the Treasury’s ears. The end of the decade is not that far away, so the Government need to start articulating the long-term vision for farming in the UK now.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
We have heard many voices from the south-west but none yet from Dorset. Although Dorset is the smallest county in the south-west, it represents nearly 10% of the agricultural workforce. Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are opportunities for the CAP system to be reformed, which farmers have been calling for, specifically in relation to the timing of payments, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) mentioned?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. For hon. Members’ understanding, James Heappey gains an extra minute.
James Heappey
I agree very much. I will come back to the importance of getting the voices of individual farmers heard. This is a question not just of subsidy—although that is clearly what most farmers will be listening for most keenly—but of access to seasonal manpower and markets, and the regulations that will be in place to facilitate that access. I therefore welcome the initial announcement that all existing EU legislation will be brought forward as UK law and thereafter amended and improved in the UK’s interest. That at least gives farmers the reassurance that the standards and regulations under which they operate will not change in a blink.
As for access to the single market, I detect a little inconsistency among the farmers in my constituency. Many in my patch have called for greater protection of the UK market to reduce imports of cheaper, and frankly less tasty, produce from elsewhere. I am not sure that we should go down the route of protecting the market, because many an agricultural sector is exporting enthusiastically and we would like to see more do so. Instead, our challenge is to promote UK produce in the UK and abroad. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall that a first step in addressing that challenge should be to ensure that British-produced food and drink is prioritised in procurement for public services.
I also agree with my hon. Friend about the availability of migrant labour. As was said during the debate last week about the tourism industry, there is high demand for seasonal migrant labour to be able to come through. The points system that the Government moved away from—thank heavens—would not have achieved what our farmers and holiday parks need. We do not just want rocket scientists to be given permits to come and work in the UK; we want agricultural workers to come in on seasonal work permits too. That will clearly require a dynamic system for ensuring that we award the right number of seasonal agricultural work permits to meet the demands of the agriculture industry at any one time.
However people voted back in June, the CAP was bloated and broken. We now have a real opportunity to set up a system of our own that subsidises where necessary to ensure food security and make our agriculture industry more resilient, with more exporters and more profit. But a word of caution: there is a real danger that in the post-Brexit policy bun fight, the large, well-funded lobbying companies will have the loudest voice. We need to make absolutely sure that farmers, who are notorious for suffering in silence in the solitude of their tractors, get a seat at the table to come forward with their ideas about what the market needs to look like post- Brexit. Farmers have incredible expertise, and it would be far better to hear them contributing to this debate than the well-funded lobbyists up in London.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this debate. Like him, I see Brexit as a great bonus for farming and fishing in the south-west. It is a win-win—but so it should be, because we have significant investment in agriculture and fishing in the south-west. Some 72% of Devon’s land is farmed, and £2.7 billion of turnover in the south-west is due to agriculture. A third of all dairy and beef, and a fifth of all sheep and lambs are also from the south-west. Whatever happens post-Brexit will make a big difference for us in the south-west.
I entirely endorse the comments made about the CAP by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). It simply did not work, and it rewarded people in the wrong way. I am not suggesting that we should in any way remove its environmental role. We should continue that, but we should make it relevant and appropriate while ensuring that we encourage production. Many farmers I speak to say that there is absolutely no incentive to produce more. That cannot be right. We also have to get the balance right between the large landowner and the farmer with a small landmass to farm who has been short-changed against the big landowners in all sorts of different ways, in part because across Europe the farmers tend to farm across much larger tracts of land, and what works for them does not necessarily work for us.
Going forward, we certainly need to see better, targeted support that is more appropriate to the nature of our agricultural community, which is not the same as that of France and Germany. We also need to ensure that the regulations are properly scrutinised, because at the moment we have rules about the size of gates, the height of hedges and how much space is left between the hedge and crop, and much of that we do not need. There are similar issues. While we clearly want to ensure that animal welfare standards are at their highest, my farmers tell me that much of the red tape around what we need to do are unnecessary and so easy to get around that, frankly, they are rather pointless.
I totally agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) about marketing and labelling, because I think very few people really understand what that tractor means. We could get a proper scheme going, with proper support to encourage supermarkets and others to really promote British, and we could have legislation that made it clear where the word “British” or “produced” can and cannot be used, because it is unclear and the European rules are different from those we have here.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that leaving the EU provides an opportunity for the UK to be more self-sufficient in food? Currently we are at just over 60%. We have a great opportunity for UK farmers to sell more of their products in the UK and for us to be less reliant on imports.
Anne Marie Morris
I totally agree. There is a huge appetite to buy local; it is just that people do not know how to do that. Those of us who live in rural communities are privileged in a way, because we have all sorts of farm shops and we all know about them, but those who live in the cities do not get the same opportunity, other than when there is a local market or whatever. There is certainly an issue in trying to bring the best of rural England to the cities and other parts of the country so that they can understand and see the benefits—certainly in taste—that we can bring them.
There are other things we could do, such as introducing a crop insurance scheme that looks at the challenges farmers face when over a year we have bad weather and a crop fails. If we did that, we could have checks and balances to help our farmers. However, we need something that really works and not something that creates a milk mountain—that would be the wrong way forward. Of course, we need to invest in science, because if we are to move forward and increase our market share and footprint, we need investment in research to go ahead.
With regard to the fishermen, I entirely support all that my Cornish colleagues have said. The quota system does not work. I am not suggesting that we should cut off anyone from fishing in our waters, but it needs to be fairer, because at the moment the French quota for plaice is twice as big as ours, for Dover sole it is two thirds more and for cod it is five sixths more than ours. That really is not acceptable.
We need a fair quota system. We need also sustainable fishing—at the moment that is largely ignored in large parts of Europe—and to deal once and for all with the discard problem, because although the EU has talked about that for many years, we still have not resolved it. There is much to do, and I am absolutely sure that the British Government can put agriculture and fishing first.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for securing the debate, which is particularly timely for me because I have my catch-up with the National Farmers Union at Crealy park in East Devon on Friday. We will hear a lot over the coming months and years about the threats and opportunities of Brexiting and it is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure that the opportunities trump the threats.
The threats are pretty obvious to the farming and fishing sectors. There are threats of access to markets—we do not know what shape they will take—and we have heard about freedom of movement issues, and of labour in particular, in the south-west, be that for people working in the poultry business or picking vegetables or daffodils further west. However, it seems to me that none of us will lament the passing of the common agricultural policy or the EU common fisheries policy.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to answer the question: does farming have a future? That is a question that, if we get it right, we will no longer have to ask ourselves. This is a time to shape our farming, shape our fishing and shape our countryside, to show people that there is indeed a future. It is self-evident, of course, that we continue with arrangements as they are for now. It does need the Secretary of State to confirm this; we can continue with the status quo until we sign the decree absolute in the divorce from the EU. It is what happens after that is important, as we change the existing legislation to reflect what we want for UK policy.
I think this is genuinely a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our farming industries and I very much hope that Ministers in the Department will not spend the next few months or years talking to lobbyists or large organisations, but talking to the practitioners on the ground. I hope they will talk to the supermarkets and finally get some sense out of them in promoting British products at fair prices. I hope they will talk to the Environment Agency and Natural England and other organisations to ensure they are refocused to support a farmed countryside, not the sanitised version of the countryside as evidenced weekly by programmes that the BBC so loves, such as “Countryfile”—or, even worse, by the absurd Chris Packham.
Rebecca Pow
My right hon. Friend is making a strong case. On that note, does he agree it is important that policies are developed that allow agriculture and the good industry to grow and, as he says, create a healthy, sustainable environment with the soil, air and water, ticking all those boxes at once? As he says, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Sir Hugo Swire
Yes, and not all from the EU has been bad—that is the point. When we come to examine some of the legislation, and particularly some of the wildlife and environmental legislation, I strongly suspect that we will want to adopt quite a lot of it for ourselves. I very much hope Ministers will come to my constituency and speak to the principal and staff at one of the finest land-based colleges left in the country, Bicton. It should not be one of the few land-based colleges left in the country; we should have them all over the countryside. I hope the Minister or her colleagues will come and speak to them.
I hope Ministers will come and talk to dairy farmers such as Peter and Di Wastenage—who were farmers of the year in the Farmers Weekly awards in 2015 and who run a magnificent dairy herd—and address the issue of how we tackle the scourge of bovine TB and finally eradicate it, particularly in the south-west. I hope they will also discuss how we can deal with flood prevention and balance that against the needs of farmers.
I hope, finally, that we will discuss issues that are important in tourism but equally important to running farming businesses: rurality, services and broadband. Farmers need broadband. They are not only isolated in their tractor cabs, non-complaining. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) has found so many non-complaining farmers—I would like to find out where they are, so perhaps he could tell me. Of course, farmers do get on with the job, but when they come home to fill in those myriad files—many of which I hope a new British farming policy will render redundant—they do need modern communications.
I think 75% of the countryside is already farmed. Let us make sure it is farmed properly and let us make sure it is farmed in the interests of the agricultural community. Let us make sure we have sustainability balanced with environmental requirements and deal, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, with the issue of food security. On balance, yes, there are threats, but the opportunities more than outweigh the threats. We should be talking up British farming and British fishing because in the south-west it is our lifeblood.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Time is short, so I will congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on bringing forward this debate, and endorse the many comments he and others have made about the importance of our farming industry. I would like to touch on: issues for our fishing industry, particularly fairness, markets, support and sustainability; our coastal communities—the Minister, whom I welcome to her post, will understand that, as she represents a coastal community—marine science; and the importance of talking to fishermen and farmers as policies go forward.
First is the issue of fairness—that is what fishermen are looking for. When 73 million of the channel fishing quota goes to British fishermen and 211 million goes to French fishermen, clearly that is out of balance. Fishermen tell me that they are unable to access waters within France’s 12-mile limit, but others are able to access waters within our 12-mile limit, so that again is an area in which we have an opportunity to make significant changes. Also, will the Minister comment on the issue of quota hopping? That has long been a source of concern to our fishermen.
This is not just about our fishing communities and fishermen; it is about the onshore sector, markets and access to those markets. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Brixham market and Brixham Trawler Agents? Last week, Mike Shaw and his team topped the £1 million mark for the value of the catch landed through Brixham market. That market was worth more than £23 million to our local economy in the past year. However, the majority of the produce that goes through that market is for export, principally to the European Union. Clearly, it is absolutely vital that we protect those markets, and that we do not drive the producer sector away from Brixham and other areas in the south-west to the European Union. I hope that the Minister will focus on that, as well as access for the important workers in that industry.
Many hon. Members have touched on support for our coastal communities, our fishermen and, indeed, for Brixham market and others. Although many grants have come from the European Union, we all accept that the money is recycled from our own resources. It will be terrific if we have more flexibility to use that money in a way that is right for our businesses and communities. Will the Minister comment on whether those processes will speed up, and become more transparent and less bureaucratic? We have a huge opportunity to do that.
There is also the important issue of sustainability. We will exit the common fisheries policy at a time when it finally seems to be getting its act together; the 2014 reforms have really started to make a difference. Continuing to look at this by sea basin area will be important. Clearly, under the United Nations arrangements, we will still rightly be bound to liaise with our neighbours when coming to these agreements; we cannot just unilaterally make changes. It is important that the Minister acknowledges the importance of having a commitment to a maximum sustainable yield and to protecting our marine environment.
We must also look at pollution controls and safety at sea. Those who put their lives on the line for us to put fish on our plate deserve an absolute assurance that safety will be foremost in the Government’s mind going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing the debate. While speaking within the terms of reference of the debate, I will also make some comments on Europe. In 2015, the UK’s deficit in trading goods and services with the EU was £69 billion, while the surplus with non-EU countries was £30 billion. The figures are clear. What is not clear are the steps that must now be taken to secure trade deals for companies.
We must remember that when article 50 is invoked and we leave Europe, the seas around the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be open to all those who fly the British flag—to us in Portavogie, in my constituency of Strangford, as well as those in Brixham and in Looe; we look forward to working with our fishing comrades in the south-west. We must also remember that companies such as Rich Sauces service places as far away as America, while Pritchitts and Lakeview dairies are looking to markets in the far east. Those are farm products that are farmed and produced at home. We look forward to those opportunities, as do those in the south-west of England.
For years, red tape has bound farmers. Common-sense farming was no longer allowed, and farming became a pen pusher’s dream and a worker’s nightmare. I commend the Government, and the Minister in particular, for guaranteeing current EU farm subsidies, which make up some 50% to 60% of UK farm income, until 2020. The fishing industry has been slowly choked to death over the years. Our fishing boats have been forced to stay at home with no compensation while every other Tom, Dick and Harry fishes our seas. Our sea is heaving with fish—that is clear for all but the scientists to see— while our boat equipment is not suitable for fishing the seas that our fishermen need to fish, because the EU says so.
I will focus on where we go from here. For our fishermen, the answer is: we go back to work. We go back to fishing our seas sensibly, ensuring that we do not overfish them, that we do our part for marine conservation, that vessels have high safety standards, and that the fishing industry has the ability to thrive once again. We must also ensure that our fleets have the ability to access international waters, and that there is freedom, within whatever policy is put in place, to let fishermen do their job.
The Government, led by the Prime Minister, have a lot to do, and we encourage the negotiation team. The UK as a whole has a lot more to do to ensure that we ignore the uncertainty and make the most of this opportunity. We must feed into this process positively to ensure that our fishermen, our farmers and our expert food industry are able to grow from the decision to leave Europe, which I fully support and which they support as well. We can again stand on our own two feet, and we will do so knowing that we are striving at all levels, regardless of personal opinions, to deliver for all in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for securing this important debate. He talked about why farmers are at the beating heart of our community and of the huge contribution that they make to the British economy. I know that is very important; I have a lot of farmers in my constituency. He also touched on the difficulties farmers have recently faced with Rural Payments Agency payments, and said that they really need Government support as we move forward towards Brexit. He also stressed the importance of maintaining good relationships with our friends in the European Union; we need to do that to secure the future of our farming and fishing industries.
The importance of this debate is shown by the number of contributions from hon. and right hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) talked about the importance of free trade with the European Union. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) discussed the need for food security—a point that came out strongly in the debate; it was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who also expressed concerns about what will happen to the seasonal workforce.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. He followed the hon. Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas), and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who talked about the particular challenges faced by the fishing industry in the south-west. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) asked a pertinent question: what is the long-term future of our farming industry? The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) asked for better-targeted support, which we will of course need.
I regularly meet farmers from across my constituency. They are concerned about their livelihoods and how much support they will receive in the future. There may well be new opportunities, as has been mentioned, but it is also clear that there are substantial challenges ahead. As we know, many rural and coastal communities have benefited from EU funding through the common agricultural policy payments, no matter how much that agreement is disliked, and also from funding for regeneration in our coastal communities and town centres.
The implications of Brexit for our fishing industry are highly uncertain. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the UK was allocated more than €240 million in funding between 2014 and 2020, which was matched by the Government. I ask the Minister if that level of funding will continue following Brexit. It was said during the referendum campaign that regaining control of territorial waters would allow Britain’s fishing industry to thrive, and that leaving the EU would mean cutting red tape for farmers. Will the Minister give us a progress report on how she is getting on with that?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter also mentioned the collapse of the pound, and we know that inflation has risen sharply. That will have an impact on producers through, for example, fuel bills, and also on consumers, through the price that they pay for food. We still do not know what rural Britain will look like post-Brexit. We hope that it will not get worse, but it may by 2019. The media in the south-west are reporting that farmers and fishermen ae already concerned about the Government’s stance and about how the Government will defend their interests. What will the Minister say to reassure farmers and fishermen, not just in the south-west but across the country?
This country has benefited from billions of pounds of investment from the EU structural funds. Will the Government pick up that slack? Experts have forecast that Cornwall could, between now and 2027, need £1.1 billion of funding to match the EU structural funds payments. Will the Minister tell us if the Government will match that expected funding? Will they match the funding expected between now and 2017, which is the next tranche? I understand that civil servants are already becoming cautious about signing off projects that may not be completed before 2019. Will the money promised be ring-fenced and locally delivered? Rural and coastal communities have already been badly hit as a result of Government funding cuts.
We see significant uncertainty at a time when fishermen and farmers really need the reassurance of continued vital investment in the rural communities of which they are such an important part. We also need infrastructure investment for better transport, better phone signals and, as the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) mentioned, better broadband.
How do the Government propose to replace and reform the current system of direct payments through the common agricultural policy? How do they propose to replace the funding provided through the EU’s rural development programmes? How do they propose to replace the EU funding for agricultural research programmes? Will they guarantee that the common fisheries policy regulations will not just be enshrined in UK law through the great repeal Bill, but will be retained, to give certainty to the fishing sector over future policy? Finally, how do the Government intend to make up for funding for the fishing sector derived from the European and maritime fisheries fund, once the UK has left the EU?
I know that there are a lot of questions for the Minister. I hope that she can give me answers today, but if not, I would greatly appreciate written answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this timely debate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State had intended to cover this debate but regrettably is unable to be here today. The subject would be especially apt for him, as he represents a constituency in the south-west—a constituency of which he is very proud—where these issues are highly relevant.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) is here supporting me. She is a great asset to our Department with her insight into this topic and especially the fishing industry. No debate in Westminster Hall would be complete without a comprehensive contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who yet again showed an ingenious way of linking his issues to those of hon. Members in the south-west. It is also a pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). I believe this is her first Westminster Hall debate in her role as shadow Minister, and she made a very good job of it—well done to her.
Our priority is to ensure that we leave the European Union in the best way for the United Kingdom. That includes ensuring that our farming and fisheries sectors have a vibrant future, while recognising that the great repeal Bill offers, in the short term, the stability that the industry needs, which the hon. Member for Workington asked about. I assure Members that DEFRA will play a lead role in discussions and decisions on leaving the European Union. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) brought up several issues about markets and article 50. He will be aware that the Government have not yet made any decisions on those matters, although we are clear that we believe we can trigger article 50. He will also know that there is an ongoing legal case at the moment, where the Attorney General is representing us.
We now have an unprecedented opportunity to redesign our policies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) said, to ensure that our agricultural and fisheries industries are competitive, productive and profitable, and that our environment is improved for future generations. Representing a rural constituency, I know that these are really good opportunities for us, particularly in the south-west, which has a long and proud farming and fishing history. Agriculture is vital across our country. Our farmers produce high-quality food to world-leading standards. Our farming heritage has shaped our landscape, defining us as a country, and contributes to a food chain worth £108 billion. It is all the more important for the south-west, with farming contributing even more to the south-west economy than the national average.
The Government have already recognised the importance of providing certainty to the agricultural and fisheries industries. In the summer, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the agricultural sector will receive the same level of funding that it would have received under pillar 1 of the CAP until the end of the multi-annual financial framework in 2020. He later announced that all structural and investment fund projects, including agri-environment schemes and the European maritime and fisheries fund—known as the EMFF—signed before the autumn statement will be fully funded, even when those projects continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU.
We have also confirmed that the Government will guarantee EU funding for structural and investment fund projects, including agri-environment schemes and the EMFF. Projects signed after the autumn statement that will continue after we leave the EU can continue if they provide good value for money and are in line with domestic strategic priorities. The hon. Member for Workington should therefore be assured. That provides the necessary certainty and continuity to our rural communities while we develop a new approach to supporting agriculture and fisheries and protecting our precious countryside and seas, which I hope gives some assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston).
As Members have set out, there are a number of similar issues and opportunities affecting agriculture and fisheries, but I will address each separately to give both their deserved airing. We recognise the need for early certainty for the agricultural industry, which is why the Government were clear on the commitment on pillar 1 to 2020 and have offered further guarantees under pillar 2. There are clear opportunities to support our farming sector to become more productive and more resilient to risks specific to the industry.
Operating outside the EU framework means we also have the opportunity to better realise some of the connections between agriculture and the environment. As Minister for the environment, I know some of these issues rather well, and I am looking forward to realising some of the great opportunities. More than 70% of our land is agricultural. There are substantial opportunities to deliver for the environment and tackle some of the totemic issues we face—air quality, water quality and biodiversity, to name just a few. We will want to embed key principles, building on strong foundations, to take a modern, open approach, using data and innovation to drive productivity, maximise new opportunities and ensure we minimise bureaucracy and red tape.
I must reiterate that although some EU rules can be burdensome, while we remain in the EU they still need to be met for farmers to receive their basic payment scheme payment. I am led to believe that 99.5% of BPS payments have been made. If there are any outstanding issues, hon. Members can contact my hon. Friend the Minister and bring them to his attention.
We are committed to developing two 25-year plans for the environment and for food and farming, as set out in the Conservative manifesto. I assure hon. Members that we will be working closely with the industry and the public on what is needed to drive agricultural and environment policies forward. There has been a wide range of contributions and thoughts on a future agricultural support system.
Dr Coffey
I am not concluding.
I assure hon. Members that there will be opportunities to contribute to shaping such a system in due course, but I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is already working hard on it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) referred to food security. I assure him that the UK has a high degree of food security, as shown by the 2010 UK food security assessment, which analysed the different global factors impacting UK food supply. One reason for our high food security is the size and competitiveness of the industry and diversity of supply. In terms of marketing, my hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the Great British Food Unit, which was launched earlier this year to promote exports, support inward investment and champion the excellence of British food and drink at home and abroad. It will be helping more and more companies to send their food and drink around the globe—including, I am sure, the 13 protected food names with south-west heritage, such as Dorset blue, Gloucestershire cider, Fal oysters and west country beef and lamb. Just yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched an ambitious plan to boost our exports up to 2020 while she was at a Paris food fair. She assures me that some of what she tasted was absolutely delicious and she did not need any dinner.
With regard to fisheries, the Government are committed to supporting the fishing industry so that it becomes more economically and environmentally sustainable. I recognise the important role the fishing fleet plays in the south-west, which is home to the largest number of fishing vessels in England. In particular, I am aware of Newlyn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). The south-west has a diverse fleet, catching a wide range of quota and non-quota species, and it is an important contributor to the wider food chain. With more than £100 million of fish landed by the south-west fleet in 2015, it plays a vital role in the local economy and provides much needed support to coastal communities, including Brixham harbour, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes referred and where last summer I enjoyed a pleasant beer watching the fish being brought in, while avoiding the seagulls.
Exit from the EU presents us with an opportunity to improve the way waters around the whole of the UK are managed, although it is important to note that even after we leave the EU, we will remain members of the UN and of other conventions. The UN convention on the law of the sea has quite clear provisions on the exclusive economic zone but also clear commitments to co-operate with other countries where there are shared fisheries. Operating outside the common fisheries policy will give us the opportunity to establish a new fisheries regime that better meets the UK’s needs, including, I hope, those of the south-west.
As with agriculture, we want to set some common principles for our fisheries policy. The UK has had some success in reforming the common fisheries policy to make it more sustainable with an agreement to fish to maximum sustainable yield and to end the wasteful discarding of unwanted fish. Ensuring that we continue to fish our waters sustainably will remain a priority, but there are of course areas where we might consider doing things differently—for example, making changes to technical regulations to better suit the specific conditions found in UK waters.
Dr Coffey
I want to address the labour issue. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to speak to him afterwards.
I assure hon. Members that I have heard their concerns today on labour as we leave the EU. DEFRA is aware that migrant workers from other EU countries will be one of the issues that will have to be resolved as part of our exit negotiations and future relationship with the EU. Our Ministers are currently working with colleagues across Government to understand all the issues and explore options.
On recruiting people into the industry, I remind hon. Members of our intention to develop thousands more food and farming apprenticeships. I am aware that Seafish, which has a national remit, has made progress on increasing the number of apprenticeships offered in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall referred to five fishermen who did a fishing course in Looe in August. All five have jobs to go to, which is great news.
I assure hon. Members that DEFRA officials are working with the Department for Exiting the European Union. We will continue to listen and I look forward to future debates.
Written Statements
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
(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)
On 26 February 2015, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the then Secretary of State for Education, having considered the report of the inspection by Dame Louise Casey CB and the advice note from Sir Michael Wilshaw (HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills), concluded that it was both necessary and expedient for them to exercise their intervention powers, as Rotherham metropolitan borough council was failing to comply with its best value duty. Due to the extent and the gravity of the failings in the council, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) rightly decided that the intervention should be broad and wide ranging. It was directed that commissioners should exercise many of the authority’s functions until the council could exercise them in compliance with its best value duty. A team of commissioners was appointed to exercise all executive functions of the authority, as well as some non-executive ones, including licensing.
On 11 February 2016, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) returned certain functions to the council, including education, housing and planning. He was satisfied with the progress made and that the council was able to exercise the identified functions in compliance with the best value duty. Returning these functions was the start of building effective and accountable political leadership and represented a clear milestone on the road to recovery. I am pleased now to be able to report on further progress made.
In his 10 May and 11 August 2016 progress reports, Lead Commissioner Sir Derek Myers recommended that the licensing functions should be returned to the council and laid out strong and compelling evidence for this. The collective evidence demonstrates that the key objectives of the intervention, in relation to licensing, have been delivered. It is my assessment that the weaknesses in licensing identified in the Casey report have been addressed and the service is now functioning effectively. Officers and members have recognised the need for and implemented fundamental cultural change, and advisory board members, in particular the chair, are more capable and confident in their role. This marks significant progress, as licensing was one of the council’s services implicated by the Casey report as contributing to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham.
On the basis of this progress, I am now satisfied that the council could exercise the licensing function in compliance with its best value duty and I am consulting on revising directions accordingly. The commissioners will continue to have oversight of the service to ensure continued compliance with this duty.
I am placing a copy of the documents associated with these announcements in the Library of the House and on my Department’s website.
[HCWS204]
Primary Education
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
The Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone and that means having the highest aspirations for all children. But we know that when it comes to their education, if a child starts behind other children, all too often they stay behind. When children leave primary school they should have acquired a firm grasp of the basics of literacy and numeracy. I know that all parents and teachers want this for our children too.
Summer 2016 saw the first pupils taking the new assessments in English and mathematics at the end of primary school. They were set against the new national curriculum which has been benchmarked against what the highest-performing countries around the world are teaching their children. As a result, the new assessments rightly raised the bar on what we expect pupils to have been taught by the age of 11, better preparing them for secondary school and beyond. In the past, although we saw high proportions of children meeting the previous lower standard at the end of primary school, too often it did not translate into good qualifications at the end of secondary school.
Although the new assessments this summer were rightly more challenging, teachers and pupils rose to that challenge. Sixty-six per cent. of pupils met or exceeded the new “expected standard” in reading, 70% did so in mathematics and 74% did so in writing.
The pace and scale of these changes has been stretching. Our objective is to make sure that children are ready for the next stage of their education. We know, and Ofsted inspectors understand, that the 2016 assessments and results mark a break with the past and are not comparable with the preceding years. In recognition of this, I am reaffirming the commitment that no more than 6% of primary schools will be below the floor standard in 2016.
It is right that we do more to identify schools where pupils are not fulfilling their potential and 2016 saw a greater emphasis on pupil progress in the accountability system. To take the next step, we are laying regulations around “coasting”, so that schools not making enough progress get the focus and support that they need to improve. We expect a small proportion of primary schools to be defined as coasting this year.
Because of the changes to primary assessment, I want to be clear that no decisions on intervention will be made on the basis of the 2016 data alone. Regional schools commissioners and local authorities will work together with the current leaders of the small minority of primary schools below the floor or coasting to help and support the schools to move forward in a positive direction.
It is important that we now set out a clear path to a settled system where our collective focus can be on achieving strong educational outcomes for all children. There has been significant change in recent years, but the timeline from this point will bring greater stability, with no new national tests or assessments introduced before the 2018-19 academic year.
As part of this I am setting out steps to improve and simplify assessment arrangements. First, we have worked closely with the profession to improve the guidance for the moderation of teacher assessment. It is important that we have a consistent and reliable approach across England. This new guidance will be accompanied by mandatory training for local authority moderators. Secondly, the key stage 1 grammar, punctuation and spelling test will remain non-statutory for schools this year, with tests available for teachers to use if they choose. Thirdly, we will not introduce statutory mathematics and reading resits on children’s arrival in year 7. Rather, we will focus on the steps needed to ensure a child catches up lost ground. High-quality resit papers will be made available for teachers to use if they wish, as part of their ongoing assessments. In addition, we will introduce a targeted package of support to make sure that struggling pupils are supported by teachers to catch up in year 7.
While the steps set out above will make improvements in the current academic year, we also need to now set out a longer-term, sustainable approach. Early in the new year we will launch a consultation on primary assessment and the implications for accountability. This will cover key issues, including the best starting point to measure the progress that children make in primary school, and the role and operation of teacher assessment. While we take time to consult on assessment arrangements, the early years foundation stage profile will remain in place for the 2017-18 academic year.
Last year, the Government commissioned Diane Rochford to lead an expert review into the assessment of pupils working below the standard of the national curriculum tests and to make recommendations that ensure they have the opportunity to demonstrate attainment and progress at primary school. I am grateful for the work of Diane Rochford and her team and we are publishing their report today. Its recommendations will also form part of the consultation.
I look forward to engaging with parents, teachers and unions on these issues in the coming months.
[HCWS203]
House of Lords
Short-Term Letting: Deregulation
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the impact on long-term residential rental properties in London of the deregulation of short-term letting last year.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, while reminding the House of my interests as declared in the register, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
The Government support the shared economy and monitor trends in private rented housing through the English housing survey. It is right that Londoners should have similar rights as elsewhere in England and be free to sublet their homes where their tenancy, contract or mortgage allows. We do not support the abuse of planning laws, and those in breach face a fine of up to £20,000.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for that Answer but, in view of the report in today’s press that Gavin Barwell has just announced a clampdown on rogue landlords and a return of powers to local councils to enable them to deal with crowding in residential lettings, will the Minister confirm that the licensing powers for local councils will also cover Airbnb lettings, which I have reported to the House on a number of occasions, whereby 10 people are routinely occupying one-bedroom flats in some residential blocks for a series of short lets that are not allowed under those leases?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think that to a degree my noble friend has covered the issue with her last point. Powers already exist for landlords to enforce provisions if they are in breach of leases. There are also planning regulations. The mandatory listing changes in relation to HMOs announced yesterday in another place by Gavin Barwell relate to residences where there are shared facilities. That would not cover tower blocks, which I think is the area on which my noble friend is focusing her attention.
Baroness Boothroyd (CB)
My Lords, since councils lost the powers of licensing short lets last year, is it correct that the only recourse that other residents in a block have in cases of threatening behaviour or damage to the property is to call the police?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, that is not the case. There are powers in relation to London. This is only a London issue, too; elsewhere in the country, prior to the change in the Deregulation Act 2015, there was a power to let without limitation. In London there is now a power to let for up to 90 consecutive days, so anything in breach of that is a breach of planning law and it rests with the local authority to enforce it. As I have indicated, there are provisions in leases. There are also of course provisions in relation to statutory nuisance; if litter should be left around or should there be noise, there are existing powers. I do not think we need additional ones.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, what assurance can the Minister give the House that the Government are looking carefully at the health and safety, fire prevention and noise and nuisance aspects of short lets? They seem to be using not very satisfactory existing law instead of looking at the situation as a whole. Can he assure us that the Government have a picture of this developing situation?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to an issue that is London-only, because prior to the change in the Deregulation Act, the position was exactly the same in other areas of England. The recent change in the law brought London to a degree in line with the rest of the country, except that there are more restrictions in London, because there is a 90-day limit. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, existing powers on statutory nuisance are and have always been available to other tenants and landlords. Of course we monitor the situation, but there is already a satisfactory range of powers.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, if short lets such as Airbnb usage become a full-time use of residential property, I believe that it then becomes business usage. Can my noble friend confirm that planning permission is required in such cases?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I said, there is an existing power. In relation to the change of law in London, if a let exceeds 90 consecutive days, it requires a planning use change. If there is a total change of user, it would also require planning permission under existing law. Also, as I said, powers exist in many leases. Recently, in the so-called Nemcova case in the London Borough of Enfield, a landlord enforced provisions in a lease in just such a situation.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Inside Airbnb website, a total of 42,646 properties are listed in London alone? Is he further aware of those 42,646, 17,593 are multiple listings—in other words, the host manages numerous properties? Does he agree that hosts with multiple listings are more likely to be running a business, unlikely to be living in the property—certainly not all of them at the same time—and potentially in violation of the Deregulation Act’s 90-day limit on short-term lettings? Do the Government really think this is satisfactory? If not, what more are they going to do about it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, if it is in excess of the 90-day limit in London, it is in breach of the law. Powers exist with local authorities to enforce that: it is for local authorities to do so as the power rests with them. In addition, as I mentioned, a case came into the department today of a landlord saying to a tenant, “You are in breach of the law. Please take down this listing: it would be a breach of your lease”. The combination of those two things—the power in the contract or lease to enforce a particular provision and the existing powers of local authorities—should meet the cases to which the noble Lord refers.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
In light of the previous question about the safety of tenants, can the Minister clarify whether the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 apply to landlords with such short-term rental properties and how such regulations can be enforced to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning among residents in places where the gas appliances are old and unsafe?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I will have to write the noble Baroness on that rather technical issue. It is an important issue but I have no knowledge of that and would not want to mislead her, so I will reply to her in writing and ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, at the very least, the Government should take action to ensure that holiday letting company websites are checking that houses on their sites are genuine lets of less than 90 days. Otherwise, there is a risk that statutory regulation, safety requirements and insurance provisions are not being complied with.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, that was an exhortation to the Government. As I said, the power lies with local authorities. There are things that the Government should be doing—I would be the first to admit that—but this rests with local authorities and I encourage them to do that. That is the position under the Deregulation Act. It is also a responsibility of landlords to ensure that the terms of the lease are adhered to. This is not a direct responsibility of the Government. We ensure that councils have the proper powers and landlords have the facility to go to court, but the responsibility rests with local authorities and landlords.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I speak as a former chairman of the London Borough of Islington’s housing committee. Does my noble friend recollect the Rachman period and De Lusignan? Against that background, does a local authority today have the legal right to check the status of any property? If, as many of us believe, the worst rogue landlords do not admit to being landlords at all, who has the authority to investigate these situations?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I was still at junior school in the Rachman period, so I have only a vague recollection of it. From the noble Lord’s experience in Islington and since, he is aware of the situation in dealing with rogue landlords and others. We are very keen to do that, which is exactly why yesterday Gavin Barwell in another place announced regulations, which we are consulting on. It is important that we do, as I have indicated, give the proper powers to local authorities as we have done and say, “This is a matter for you”.
International Development Aid
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their priorities for the United Kingdom’s international development aid budget.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a patron of Action on Poverty.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
The UK’s aid budget will be delivered according to the objectives in the UK aid strategy—namely, strengthening global peace, security and governance; strengthening resilience and response to crises; promoting global prosperity; and tackling extreme poverty and helping the world’s most vulnerable. This approach builds on the strong successes of the last five years and recognises the need to ensure that everything we do contributes to the national interest.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I think that Members on all sides of the House are increasingly concerned about the Government’s dogmatic approach to using the aid budget to promote private healthcare services in developing countries. How much has DfID contributed to private health initiatives such as private fee-paying hospitals, and how does this meet the objective of building sustainable, universal healthcare systems that can deal with humanitarian emergencies such as Ebola?
Baroness Mobarik
My Lords, the UK provides technical assistance and financial support focused on helping countries to strengthen their whole health system. This Government remain committed to delivering on our international commitments, including the global goals, and therefore strongly support progress towards global goal 3, which is about good health and well-being. For example, we have supported Sierra Leone over the course of the crisis to establish systems that can rapidly detect and contain outbreaks of Ebola, and so on, before they grow into epidemics. We are working with the Government and the World Health Organization as well as other partners to make those systems resilient and enduring.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, since the single most important factor in determining the success of development in developing countries is the quality of leadership in those countries, would my noble friend ask her department to consider whether the best use of its burgeoning budget might not be to provide scholarships for the leaders of the future from the developing countries to study at our excellent universities?
Baroness Mobarik
Governance aid is a major part of our strategy to provide good governance in countries around the world that we are trying to help. If the noble Lord is alluding to fraud and corruption, I just want to say that the Government do not tolerate corruption or misuse of taxpayers’ funds in any form. When DfID identifies issues relating to fraud, it takes them very seriously and investigates them thoroughly.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I take it from the noble Baroness’s reply that the priorities include working towards achieving the sustainable development goals, which, as she knows, include achieving universal health coverage globally. Will she agree with me that universal health coverage will not be achieved without strengthening the role that nurses can play, and would she further agree that the UK, working with the Commonwealth and the World Health Organization, can play a major role in raising the profile of nursing globally and ensuring that the potential of nurses to do even more is understood and acted on?
Baroness Mobarik
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and I commend him on his work with the APPG on Global Health. We welcome the overall findings of the Triple Impact report on nursing and are committed not only to training new nurses but to improving the skills of nurses already deployed. We support an array of health professionals, embracing a whole-system approach which is aligned with country priorities. For example, the Health Partnership Scheme supports UK health professionals to volunteer to build health workforce capacity in around 30 developing countries.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of the overwhelming consensus in this House in 2015 during passage of the international development Act, on which I had the privilege to be the Member in charge. The House should also be very proud that in the 2016 Aid Transparency Index, the UK was the leading country in the world for aid transparency. Was the Minister therefore not as surprised as I was to read in the Mail on Sunday of 9 October the following words attributed to Priti Patel, the Secretary of State:
“I’ll defy order to blow £12 billion on foreign aid”?
The article continued:
“International Development Secretary told aides she’ll ignore requirement”.
Will this Government act within not only the word but the spirit of the law, and will they not only meet their international obligation year on year but work with our friends and colleagues in countries around the world who do not meet theirs? We should be leading by example, not by such damaging and inconsistent headlines in the Mail on Sunday.
Baroness Mobarik
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think we are leading by example. We are meeting the 0.7% target, which is a manifesto commitment. It is enshrined in law. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been unequivocal that we will continue to honour that promise.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government continue to support the OECD definition of what spending constitutes foreign aid?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that DfID’s Secretary of State has advocated the abolition of that very department, given what she calls the waste of development funds, and that by 2020 she will accept a 44% increase in the proportion of development assistance spent by departments other than DfID? Does the Minister think that such a Secretary of State has the personal and political commitment necessary to properly decide development priorities?
British Servicemen: Vexatious Law Suits
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent vexatious law suits being brought against British servicemen.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has recently reaffirmed that the Government will put an end to the industry of vexatious claims. As a first step, we have already announced that the Government intend to derogate from the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in future conflicts whenever that is considered appropriate. We hope to announce further measures shortly.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
At the last election, the Conservative manifesto promised that our Armed Forces would not be subject to “persistent” legal claims that,
“undermine their ability to do their job”.
As the Minister said, the Prime Minister said in her conference speech that,
“we will never again in any future conflict”,
allow Britain’s Armed Forces to be harassed. However, the Defence Secretary contradicted her in a statement last week when he said that we will act to stop such claims only where this is appropriate. Our forces are subject to UK service law and allegations of criminal activity are rightly investigated. However, under this Government a whole industry of vexatious allegations against the men and women of our Armed Forces has flourished. So will the Minister tell us: is the Government’s policy the one set out by the Prime Minister or the one set out by the Defence Secretary?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is no contradiction. As the noble Lord rightly said, the vast majority of service personnel deployed on operations overseas have acted in accordance with the law and their training. However, where credible criminal allegations are made, we must investigate in accordance with our legal obligations. What we need to do is strip out the vexatious claims. That is why we are taking a range of measures, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, what combat immunity or other legal protection have the Government arranged for Armed Forces personnel currently engaged in armed conflict in the air or on the ground, in the light of the views expressed by the Prime Minister?
Earl Howe
As regards combat immunity, the Government have previously made it clear that we will not rule out legislating, which is being considered among a range of options. It has been suggested that we should simply reinstate Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act; that is one of the options we are looking at, but it would be possible only under certain specific circumstances. No plans are in train for any immediate change on that front.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I have professional experience of fraudulent claims and of legitimate claims like the Baha Mousa case, where the deceased received 95 injuries before he died. I note that the Ministry of Defence has settled 326 claims at a cost of £32 million; I assume that those were legitimate claims. Do the Government now intend to abolish or prevent all claims being brought by prisoners or civilians who are injured in the course of operations, regardless of whether they are legitimate or vexatious?
Earl Howe
As the noble Lord is aware, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team looks into these allegations, which have totalled more than 3,300 to date. The current case load is around 1,600 and it expects to reduce that number to 250 by next January. We cannot simply close it down, because that would mean leaving these allegations open to referral to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, with the possibility of trials there. We must therefore investigate properly in this country.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, of course it is absolutely right that all our troops should be subject to international humanitarian law. My noble friend has described the first step the Government have taken. I suggest two further steps: putting combat immunity on a firm statutory basis, as the noble and gallant Lord suggested—there is far too ambiguity about its scope—and considering restricting the territorial scope of the Human Rights Act, which it was once thought clearly applied only within the United Kingdom.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Earl say why ex-military are treated in a different way in Northern Ireland when it comes to investigation of historic crimes? Surely there is a requirement to look on an equal basis at all these cases, be it a legacy case that includes the military or some other person within Northern Ireland. Why are they treated differently?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are acutely mindful of the impact of any allegations against service personnel, particularly veterans and their families. Where veterans are involved in processes that arise out of alleged actions during their service, we will provide legal support as necessary—regardless of the length of an individual’s service or the time that has elapsed since the events occurred. It is always possible for us to look at improving the way we support veterans—and indeed serving personnel—and we are happy to look at anything in that area.
Lord Robathan (Con)
But my Lords, is not the PSNI legacy unit pursuing soldiers who committed acts 41 years ago, the cases against whom have been dismissed on at least two occasions? This means that people in their 70s are being arrested and charged, yet the other people who were in their patrol are already dead and cannot give evidence for them.
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a powerful point. We want to process expeditiously any such cases where there is credible evidence. That is why we are supporting the creation of the historical investigations unit, which will roll into one some of the functions of the ombudsman and the Police Service of Northern Ireland and create efficiencies in the process. The life of that body will be limited to five years, which should provide some assurance that cases will not be allowed to drag on.
Calais Camps: Unaccompanied Minors
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the planned demolition of the refugee camps in Calais by 31 October, what steps they are taking to ensure that all unaccompanied minors are registered and considered for settlement in the United Kingdom before that date.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
No date for completing the demolition of the camps has been specified. However, Home Office teams have been deployed to France to speed up the identification process. We will transfer as many as possible of the children who qualify under the Dublin regulations before the start of the clearance, and in the coming weeks we will start to transfer other unaccompanied refugee children under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure we all welcome the 14 children who were received here two or three days ago, but I am told that that currently leaves 1,020 unaccompanied children in Calais. Fourteen have come here, so there are only 1,006 left to accommodate. Is there a plan to ensure that every one of those 1,006 will be registered and given the opportunity to apply to enter the UK under the Dubs amendment? With the coming winter, surely we cannot leave any children open to exploitation, hunger and homelessness when we have the opportunity to fulfil their needs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is estimated that there are approximately 1,300 children in the camps in Calais and that about a third of that number may be eligible to come here under either Dubs or Dublin. As I have said to the House on previous occasions, since the beginning of the year 140 children have qualified under the Dublin regulations and most of them have been transferred. In addition, this week 14 children were transferred on Monday, 13 on Tuesday and 12 today, so the actual number is estimated to be around three times the number that the noble Lord has stated. However, whether under Dubs or Dublin, we are absolutely determined to get those children here. The noble Lord will know—because I have stated it previously—that the Home Secretary regularly presses for those children, first, to be brought here and, secondly, if they are not here, to be put in places of safety before the camp is cleared.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, a lot of dissatisfaction has been expressed in the paper today with people saying that these are adults rather than children. The paper went on to say that the best way of identifying age is through a dental examination, as wisdom teeth are highly significant, and that is why I am asking this question. It also said that a dental examination could not be done without parental consent, although of course various X-rays can be done without even opening a child’s mouth. There is something very strange about that. I wonder why it has not been possible to come to an agreement whereby, if you want to come in, you are obliged to give consent to be checked regarding your age.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I confess to being 49 years of age and still not having wisdom teeth, but that probably says something about me. We are working very closely with the French authorities and their partner agencies to ensure that all those who come to the UK from the camps are eligible under the Dublin regulations. All individuals referred to the UK authorities by the FTDA are interviewed by French and UK officials and, where credible and clear documentary evidence of age is not available, criteria including physical appearance and demeanour are used as part of the interview process to assess age. That is the process in France and I want noble Lords to be quite clear that we are bound by the French system of assessing age in France. When those children come to the UK, we do not use dental X-rays to confirm the ages of those seeking asylum. The British Dental Association is vigorously opposed to them and has described them as inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
Will the Minister assure the House that no minors are being treated illiberally or will be in the future?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to ask that. We are primarily seeking to ensure that no minor is made more vulnerable in France, and that when they come here they are properly looked after in accordance with the safeguarding laws in this country, which are very stringent. That is exactly what we seek to do.
Lord Hylton (CB)
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that there is only one British official permanently in Calais for liaison with the French authorities, and only one official of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Surely that is inadequate, and surely the need for competent interpreters must be properly addressed. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
What I can agree is that the number of officials in France is changing in accordance with the numbers needed in various roles. We have a permanent dedicated Dublin unit in the Home Office. In addition, on Monday, we sent nine officials to France to assist. I repeat again: we are guided by the French and by French law; we cannot do any more than that. We would not seek to usurp French law in trying to make the situation better for those children who we seek to help.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
May I do something that I do not think I have ever done before and welcome what the Government have said today? It is good news that child refugees are coming to Britain. I wish that we had had these statements several months ago, but it is happening now. I simply ask the Minister to assure us that all pressure is being brought to bear on the French Government, because I understand that they have a part to play in assessing the other children who come under the Immigration Act.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for his words and for the time that we spend regularly now speaking to each other about the situation in Calais and elsewhere in Europe. Not only is every pressure being brought to bear, but we are trying very hard to work with the French and not against French law.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Wednesday 19th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2017 View all Pension Schemes Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text
Pensions: Sale of Annuities
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat as a Statement the response to an Urgent Question given in the other place by Simon Kirby, Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, this Government have taken a great step forward in giving more and more people freedom over how they choose to use their pension savings when they retire. We have, in fact, already seen over 300,000 people choosing to access their pension flexibly since the reforms were introduced.
Alongside our efforts to do this, we also said that we would look at how we could spread this flexibility to people locked into existing annuities. We consulted extensively with the industry and with consumer groups to explore whether we could put in place the right conditions for a market to develop that could facilitate this. Throughout our investigations, one of our very highest priorities was to establish whether people would be able to get a good deal through such a market. But in the course of our efforts to investigate the viability of a secondary market in annuities, two things became clear. First, without compromising on consumer protections, there would be insufficient purchasers of these annuities to create a competitive market in which British pensioners could get a good deal. Secondly, pensioners trying to sell their annuities would also be likely to incur high costs in doing so.
This Government have made it very clear that we want this to be a country that works for everyone. That includes making sure that everyone gets a high level of consumer protection. It has become clear now, through our extensive research, that a secondary market would not be able to offer this. Rather than being to the benefit of British pensioners, it would instead be to their detriment, and for this reason, we are not prepared to allow such a market to develop and we will not be taking this policy forward”.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but this is the second government U-turn on pension-related matters that we have seen in the space of just a few weeks—another example of a flawed approach to pension policy characterised by fanfare announcement, a period of rethink and then a retraction by press release. In this case, there has been an abandonment of plans for a secondary annuities market, as we have heard, which was never credible without consumer detriment.
At a time when we need to build confidence and sustainability in our pension system, what sort of message does this chaotic approach send to those we should be encouraging to save more for their retirement? How do the Government propose to address the £960 million additional black hole in their finances that now arises from the reduction in their projected tax revenues?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his measured response. On the first question, I do not think confidence in pensions would be enhanced if we went ahead with the scheme without adequate consumer protection. Against a background over the past 20 or 30 years of financial products being sold incorrectly, it would have been quite wrong to go ahead with this scheme. As I said, it was unlikely that a vibrant and competitive market would emerge and we could not get the market to work without undermining consumer protections.
On the figure pencilled into the Government’s accounts, had the policy gone ahead, it would have brought forward a certain number of tax receipts into the early years at the expense of getting those receipts in the later years. Overall, I think it will be neutral. It will be up to the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement to explain how the books will be balanced.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
Well, well, well, my Lords, what has happened to the party of freedom and freedom of choice? The Government promised us stability in the general election. That was lost by the referendum result. They promised us an economic plan, which is now in shreds. Page 3 of their manifesto said that the Conservatives would,
“give you the freedom to use your pension savings as you want”.
No. Now they will not.
There was a flagship announcement by George Osborne in March 2015 of another government initiative. It had a good headline, and a total lack of follow-through once Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister, was no longer in government. Therefore, inevitably, the Government are left abandoning it. People are locked into poor-performing annuities and they deserve an escape route. I have four questions for the Minister.
How are people being informed of this change, particularly those who would like to get out of their locked-in annuity policies? What help will the Government give to people locked into these poor performing annuities? Is this reversal due to the low interest rates following Brexit totally destroying the returns on lump-sum annuities? Finally, by making this announcement outside Parliament, is this another example of the Government not being in control of what they are doing and economic and pension policy being dictated by the markets?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to the noble Lord. On the timing of the announcement, sometimes the market-sensitive nature of an announcement means it has to take place at a specific time, quite often when the Stock Exchange is not open. So far as those who are disappointed are concerned, the information available to the Government is that only 5% of those with annuities would be likely to have taken up this offer had it gone ahead, so roughly 95% will not be affected by the announcement. It is independent of any level of interest rates; it is not a function of quantitative easing or anything like that. I see that Steve Webb, to whom the noble Lord referred, has said that the decision is “disappointing” but “understandable”, implying that he goes along with it.
The final point about information is a good one and I will see what we can do to let people know. I suspect that many will have read the newspapers and are aware that this option will no longer be available.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Is not the problem that the Government have failed all along to provide a properly regulated, publicly controlled vehicle to satisfy the needs of those with very small annuities—often, by the way, ones that do not provide protection either for spouses or against inflation—who want to exchange them for a cash sum that they can repay debts with or provide for their partners? Now we have the worst of both worlds, being stuck in this policy impasse.
Lord Young of Cookham
I think the noble Lord is suggesting that, rather than the private sector providing an option for these annuitants, the Government should have provided it. That was never the proposal and he will know that, along with the other pension freedoms, they are operated by the private sector. Those who opt out of their pension to use the other options do so without resorting to a government scheme.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on reversing a bad policy, on doing so both quickly and courageously, and on the clarity with which the Minister has justified it. The points he has made demonstrate clearly that the decision that has now been taken is the right one and that it is always better to learn from experience, so Governments should be congratulated when they do so.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am enormously grateful to my noble friend, who has good knowledge of the workings of the City. As he implied, it has become increasingly clear that creating the conditions that will allow a vibrant and competitive market to emerge, with multiple buyers and multiple sellers of annuities, could not be balanced or achieved without sufficient consumer protection. After having drilled down and consulted regulators, consumer organisations and other stakeholders, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be in consumers’ interests to continue with this policy.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
I agree with the Government’s decision and I believe that the Chancellor has called time on a bad policy. I feel it now and I certainly believed it when it was put. The risk to annuity holders of trading in a secondary annuity market are extremely high and the complicated regulatory requirements to protect them in such a market would undoubtedly mean that the costs would have been transferred to the consumer. It was also evident that there would be insufficient purchasing in that market. All these issues were raised by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, other noble Lords and me when this enabling legislation was debated. It was clear what the problems were but the Government were determined to push ahead. Why did the Government put enabling legislation in place before they had satisfied themselves that the creation of a secondary annuity market was a viable policy, when it was absolutely evident that all the problems which have now been deployed for not proceeding with a secondary annuity market existed then and people articulated them very clearly? That is the problem. It was clear that the secondary annuity market would not work, so why was enabling legislation rushed through?
Lord Young of Cookham
In all seriousness, I commend the noble Baroness on her foresight in being able to see in March 2015 that this was not a runner. That was not the view of many financial commentators at the time. It was seen to be consistent with those who had not yet reached retirement age and therefore had the freedom not to have an annuity. It was seen to be right to extend that freedom to those who had already purchased an annuity. In principle, it was the right thing to explore but, as I said in response to my noble friend, as we drilled down it became clear that there was not the secondary market that was necessary. Moreover, those who were going to sell their annuities would have had to have a medical examination, they would have had to pay brokerage charges and they would probably have faced administrative costs. It would have reached only a relatively small percentage. For all the reasons she has given, we have come to the same conclusion as the noble Baroness, albeit a little after her.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund; I should make it clear that you cannot have an annuity through that fund. Nevertheless, is not the core of the issue that a number of commentators have rubbished current annuities but that, in any case, no one knows exactly how long anyone will live, and that at some point your annuity will pay back quite handsomely regardless of what its level may be? Against that background, it seems to have been absolutely right for Her Majesty’s Government to do another analysis now, in a changing situation, and to decide that what was said more than a year ago is not correct today. Given that, I would have hoped that Her Majesty’s Government would think again and I congratulate them on doing so.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to my noble friend for his robust support for the decision that has just been taken. Of course, even had we gone ahead with the policy, a huge number of those with annuities would have been better off sticking with them rather than trading them in, for the reasons that we have heard.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Wednesday 19th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-III Third marshalled list for Report (PDF, 153KB) - (17 Oct 2016)
16:52 - Division on Amendment 196A - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 321 - Amendment 196A disagreed.
Lord Keen of Elie
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 180, 181, 197, 198, 205, 206, 231 and 232 relate to judicial commissioner approval of major modifications to warrants issued under Parts 6 and 7 of the Bill. They seek to provide additional clarity regarding the matters the commissioner must review when deciding whether to approve such a modification.
The Bill already provides for major modifications to such warrants. In the context of bulk interception, bulk acquisition and bulk personal dataset warrants, a major modification may be used to add or vary one of the operational purposes for which data may be examined under the warrant. As regards bulk equipment interference warrants, a major modification can additionally add to or vary any description of conduct in the warrant.
The Bill requires full double-lock authorisation from a Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner for any major modification to a bulk warrant. These amendments will not change that. Instead, they provide greater clarity about the matters that a commissioner must consider when determining whether to approve a modification to a bulk warrant.
The amendments specify that, for major modifications to add or vary an “operational purpose”, a judicial commissioner must review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the modification is necessary, applying the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review and ensuring that the commissioner complies with the duties in relation to privacy set out in Clause 2, the so-called privacy clause.
In the context of bulk equipment interference, if a major modification proposes to add or vary a description of conduct, the judicial commissioner must also review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the conduct authorised by the modification is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it. The amendments are intended to ensure clarity and consistency across the Bill, and as such are to be welcomed.
The sharing of data and intelligence with our overseas partners is critical to the work of our security and intelligence agencies. Without working together with our allies, those agencies could not do their vital work of keeping us safe. Amendments 184, 185, 201, 202, 209 and 210 simply clarify the consideration that must be given by the Secretary of State before authorising the disclosure to overseas authorities of data acquired under the bulk powers in the Bill.
The Bill already places a duty on the Secretary of State to consider whether corresponding safeguards will be applied to the data that are to be shared with the overseas authority in relation to their retention and disclosure. These amendments make explicit that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the overseas authority has in place safeguards, to the extent appropriate, that correspond to those in the Bill not only in respect of the retention and disclosure of the data shared in bulk but in relation to their selection for examination. This group of amendments therefore makes absolutely clear that proper consideration will be given to the examination safeguards that are applied whenever bulk data are shared with another country. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving these amendments, all of which we are happy to support and some of which respond to concerns we raised in Committee.
It may assist the House if I outline at this stage the purpose of Amendment 185A, in the names of my noble friend Lord Rosser and myself, which is about safeguards for disclosing overseas-related material for our foreign allies and agencies. That is material, possibly including information sent overseas by UK residents, obtained by our security and intelligence services under bulk interception warrants. It is an amendment which we hope the Government will feel able to accept.
In Clause 142, before any information obtained under a bulk interception warrant is disclosed overseas, the Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements and safeguards are in place regarding the retention and disclosure of such material, as the Minister has outlined. These requirements correspond to Clause 141 safeguards for domestic arrangements: that is, requiring that the number of people to whom the bulk-intercepted material is disclosed, the extent of disclosure and the number of copies made is limited to the minimum necessary. These safeguards also require the destruction of such material where there are no longer grounds for retaining it.
However, unlike Clause 141 for domestic arrangements, Clause 142 for overseas disclosure provides a wide discretion for the Secretary of State, whereby she or he must ensure equivalent safeguards only,
“to such extent (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
It could, therefore, be possible for the Secretary of State to decide that no safeguards are required in a particular case.
We recognise absolutely that the UK will need to share intelligence with overseas agencies and our amendment does not undermine the ability of UK agencies to do that. We also accept that overseas disclosure may be of a different nature, with particular political, diplomatic or security implications, all of which the Secretary of State must consider. However, the present wording is surely too wide and, if I have understood it correctly, would not be subject to subsequent review. Amendment 185A removes this very broad discretion and requires that it must appear to the Secretary of State that safeguards corresponding to the requirements under Clause 141(2) and (5) will apply in relation to disclosure overseas.
The Minister will not be surprised if I make reference to the Szabó v Hungary finding that minimum standards should be set out in law to avoid abuses of power and that,
“it would be contrary to the rule of law … for a discretion granted to the executive in the sphere of national security to be expressed in terms of unfettered power”.
The judgment notes that,
“the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion … with sufficient clarity … to give … adequate protection against arbitrary interference”.
I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment as, if anything, extra safeguards may, indeed, be required where sensitive information is being disclosed abroad. We look forward to the Minister’s response on this.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we, too, are happy with the government amendments in this group and we support Amendment 185A. The issue is about the discretion in the application of Clauses 141(2) and 141(5)—and, shortly, Clause 143—not their relevance. The term “appropriate” suggests to me a degree of discretion which may not be related to relevance. The term “mutatis mutandis” is not one commonly used in legislation, I think, but it is that provision that one wants to see—only changing what is necessary to be changed. I do not know the proper way of dealing with that, but “appropriate” seems to be inappropriate in the context.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has observed, Amendment 185A would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to consider the extent to which the application of corresponding safeguards is appropriate in relation to the sharing with an overseas authority. The Government consider that this is a vital provision and its removal from the Bill would pose a real risk to the national security of this country and other countries around the world. The threat we face from terrorism and serious and organised crime is global. It is inevitable that there will be circumstances where our security and intelligence agencies uncover threats to other countries through intelligence derived from a bulk interception warrant.
In some circumstances, such threats will be against countries with which the United Kingdom has well-established intelligence-sharing relationships, and in such circumstances there are likely to be corresponding safeguards applying to the handling of intercepted material. However, there will be occasions when such intelligence indicates a serious threat to a country overseas, potentially in urgent circumstances, whose authorities simply do not apply the same level of safeguards as those included in the Bill. In such circumstances, it is crucial that the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the arrangements that should be in place to regulate the disclosure. This decision will need to balance the risk that the material will not be subject to the same level of safeguards that it would be in this country against the risks to the security of the country in question if material is not shared.
For example, in some circumstances a failure to share intercepted material containing vital intelligence could result in a terrorist atrocity. Even in such a scenario, the amendment would place an absolute prohibition on the relevant intercepted material being shared because the overseas authority does not apply safeguards corresponding to those in the Bill. This would not be a responsible position and I believe it is only right that the Secretary of State must be responsible for deciding the appropriate arrangements for sharing intercepted material with an overseas authority, considering the particular circumstances of each case. In addition to this consideration by the Secretary of State, the safeguards that apply to the use of bulk interception will be subject to rigorous, independent oversight and scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. This will, of course, include the arrangements for the disclosure of intercepted material overseas.
For the reasons I have outlined, it is absolutely crucial that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to consider the extent to which corresponding safeguards should apply where intercepted material is being shared overseas. The amendment would fetter that consideration and is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Accordingly, I invite the noble Baroness not to move it.
“Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to make a major modification of a bulk interception warrant, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the modification is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrant to be necessary.(2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matter referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).(3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 137, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal.(4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 137, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification.”
“and section (Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners)(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision.”
“( ) In deciding whether to give an approval under subsection (2) in a case where subsection (1)(b)(i) applies, a senior official must have regard to the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.”
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), there cannot be exceptional and compelling circumstances that make it necessary to authorise the use of the relevant criteria unless—(a) the public interest in obtaining the information that would be obtained by the selection of the intercepted content for examination outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege,(b) there are no other means by which the information may reasonably be obtained, and(c) obtaining the information is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.”
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if, in a case where intercepted content obtained under a bulk interception warrant is to be selected for examination—(a) the selection of the intercepted content for examination meets any of the selection conditions in section 143(3)(a) to (c),(b) the purpose, or one of the purposes, of using the criteria to be used for the selection of the intercepted content for examination (“the relevant criteria”) is to identify communications that, if they were not made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose, would be items subject to legal privilege, and(c) the person to whom the warrant is addressed considers that the communications (“the targeted communications”) are likely to be communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.(3B) The intercepted content may be selected for examination using the relevant criteria only if a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State has approved the use of those criteria.(3C) A senior official may give an approval under subsection (3B) only if the official considers that the targeted communications are likely to be communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.”
“(4A) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may—(a) direct that the item is destroyed, or(b) impose conditions as to the disclosure or otherwise making available of that item.(4B) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner—(a) may require an affected party to make representations about how the Commissioner should exercise any function under subsection (4A), and(b) must have regard to any such representations made by an affected party (whether or not as a result of a requirement imposed under paragraph (a)).(4C) Each of the following is an “affected party” for the purposes of subsection (4B)—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the person to whom the warrant is or was addressed.”
“Additional safeguard for confidential journalistic material
Where—(a) a communication which has been intercepted in accordance with a bulk interception warrant is retained, following its examination, for purposes other than the destruction of the communication, and(b) it is a communication containing confidential journalistic material,the person to whom the warrant is addressed must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as is reasonably practicable.(For provision about the grounds for retaining material obtained under a warrant, see section 141.)”
Lord Janvrin
“Offence of breaching safeguards relating to examination of material under bulk interception warrants
(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person selects for examination any intercepted content or secondary data obtained under a bulk interception warrant,(b) the person knows or believes that the selection of that intercepted content or secondary data for examination does not comply with a requirement imposed by section 143 or 144, and(c) the person deliberately selects that intercepted content or secondary data for examination in breach of that requirement. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), or(ii) to a fine,or to both;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine, or to both.(3) No proceedings for any offence which is an offence by virtue of this section may be instituted—(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.”
“section (General definitions: “journalistic material” etc.) (general definitions: “journalistic material” etc.),”
Lord Paddick
“( ) A bulk acquisition warrant may not require data which relates to or includes internet connection records.”
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 196A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It seeks to remove internet connection records from the type of communications data that can be acquired in bulk. Noble Lords will be very well aware of my views, and the agreed view of the Liberal Democrats, on internet connection records. We believe that they are unnecessary and disproportionate, for the reasons that I have articulated in detail throughout the passage of the Bill.
I shall just remind your Lordships what internet connection records mean. Internet service providers are being forced to keep a record of every website that everyone in the UK has visited in the last 12 months, whether the subscriber is suspected of crime or not. Even though only the first page of each website visited is shown, visiting www.relate.org.uk could, for example, immediately indicate that your marriage was in trouble. However there are some safeguards, including some concessions extracted by the Labour Opposition, to ensure that only the internet connection records of those suspected of crimes that could result on conviction in a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment or more can be examined by law enforcement agencies.
We are also grateful to the Labour Opposition for securing the review of bulk powers carried out by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. We are particularly grateful to David Anderson for highlighting in paragraph 2.41(b), on page 33 of his report on bulk powers, that,
“it is not currently envisaged that the bulk acquisition power in the Bill will be used to obtain internet connection records”.
However, in a footnote at the bottom of that page, Mr Anderson states that he has been told,
“that this is no more than a statement of present practice and intention: neither the Bill nor the draft Code of Practice rules out the future use of the bulk acquisition power in relation to ICRs”.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said:
“I can confirm to the Committee that the agencies do not currently acquire internet connection records in bulk and have no current intention to do so. It is however important to ensure that we do not legislate against the possibility of internet connection records being acquired in bulk, should agencies make a case which demonstrates that this might be necessary and proportionate in the interests of national security in future”.—[Official Report, 7/9/16; cols. 1087-88.]
Surely we should be legislating for a proven need, not not legislating against a possible but unlikely proven one.
Noble Lords will remember that the security services—GCHQ, MI5 and MI6—have all said that they do not need internet connection records in order to do their work. The power to acquire communications data in bulk, including the power to acquire ICRs in bulk, is available only to those agencies. The power to acquire internet connection records in bulk is therefore not needed. They are not collected in bulk at the moment, and there is no current intention to do so. If this were an opposition amendment to include ICRs in bulk data acquisition, the Government would quite rightly say it was unnecessary. The power to acquire ICRs in bulk also strips away all the safeguards that are in place when law enforcement agencies apply for individual internet connection records.
This is the online equivalent of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allowed the police to stop and search people without any reasonable suspicion. The former Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, Theresa May took that power away from the police because she considered it disproportionate.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Surely Section 44 was for target hardening and deterrence rather than for any other purpose.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but that is not what I understood Parliament’s intention was when the legislation was enacted. We can argue the point. If the analogy with stop and search sounds familiar to noble Lords next to me, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, it is because it is an analogy that was used by the shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott in describing the powers under the Bill, which she describes as draconian.
The pieces of this legislative jigsaw are beginning to fall into place. Telephone operators already keep a record of the details of every phone call made and every text message sent. Internet service providers are being forced by this Bill to keep a record of every website, you, I and everyone else in this country have visited over the previous 12 months, which is a provision this House agreed to on Monday in a Division when it rejected the Liberal Democrat amendment to prevent it. A request filter, operated by or on behalf of the Government will be constructed. It will have direct feeds into the databases of communications providers, including access to the sensitive personal information of every subscriber to telephone and internet services in the UK, every call they make and every website they visit. The House agreed to that provision in a Division on Monday when it rejected the Liberal Democrat amendment to prevent it. The power is then given by this part of the Bill to allow all that sensitive personal information—details of every phone call made and every website visited—to be downloaded at will by the security agencies with no further authorisation. I hope that at least some noble Lords are feeling uncomfortable at that prospect. Our amendment removes internet connection records from the data that can be acquired under a bulk acquisition warrant. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, it will not surprise my noble friend to learn that I oppose the amendment that he has just moved. We made reference during our previous day on Report to papers that were presented by the Government at the time of First Reading. Those papers included, as was mentioned on Monday of this week, a paper in which GCHQ explained why the bulk acquisition of communications data material might be crucial to interdicting a major terrorism event which it thought was likely to occur, or might possibly occur, in the near future.
The issue was then referred to David Anderson—and I am surprised that my noble friend does not accept what Mr Anderson, the independent reviewer, said on the matter. He reminded us that three of the powers under review—bulk interception, bulk acquisition of communications data and bulk personal datasets—were already in use across the range of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ activity, from cyberdefence, counterterrorism and counterespionage to combating child sexual abuse and organised crime. He said:
“They play an important part in identifying, understanding and averting threats in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and further afield”.
The GCHQ paper to which I referred dealt with “further afield”.
Mr Anderson continued:
“After close examination of numerous case studies, the review concluded that other techniques could sometimes, though not always, be used to achieve these objectives: but that they would often be less effective, more dangerous, more resource-intensive, more intrusive or slower”.
Mr Anderson concluded that there was a proven operational case for three of the powers already in use, and he agreed that there was a distinct though as yet unproven operational case for the fourth power: bulk equipment interference. He also recognised the “breath-taking”—that was his word—pace of change in this area, and that we needed to make sure that the authorities had the proportionate powers that were required to protect this country, and other countries, from terrorism.
Therefore, the Bill provides the powers with a very elaborate set of protections. We also have—it is available in the Public Bill Office—the Bulk Acquisition DRAFT Code of Practice, dated autumn 2016: it is very recent. In paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11 of the code—and, indeed, elsewhere in the code—the most elaborate protections are described. For example, paragraph 3.10 contains operational guidance and advice for those who are dealing with these matters and states in terms:
“No interference with privacy should be considered proportionate if the information which is sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means”.
Paragraph 3.11 of the code sets out in four very carefully drafted bullet points the elements of proportionality that should be considered before the powers are used. It includes assessing whether other methods have been considered and whether those other methods could have provided a reasonable outcome without the necessity of the invasion of privacy which undoubtedly the provisions describe.
I therefore ask my noble friend to state, when he comes to reply to this short debate, what his view is of the code of practice—and, in particular, of the part to which I referred.
Lord Paddick
The amendment relates specifically to internet connection records being acquired, and I have yet to hear my noble friend address any of his remarks to the issue of those records.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
If my noble friend wants me to be specific, I will, but I was trying not to take up too much time. Let us take the example of a piece of information, given to a security service, that people in possession of a bulk delivery of a certain type of telecommunications equipment, say a phone brand, are involved in the planning of a terrorist event. In order to find out quickly who these people are, the authorities would need to attack the bulk, so as to exclude all people who are not involved in the planned event. This is an absolutely routine technique that is used. I see one or two of my noble friends turning round in surprise. If they are surprised, they have not even read modern spy novels, let alone about the reality of what is being done by intelligence agencies all around the world.
The answer to my noble friend is as simple as that. I will just repeat my question, because I would like him to reply to it in due course. I take it that he has read the code of practice. What is missing from the code of practice that is required in order to provide the protection he wishes for? It is all in the code of practice; it is all in the statute. I apologise for repeating something I said on Monday, but these provisions, as drafted, are a careful and responsible response by a Government who wish to do no more than the state absolutely has to, safely, to protect their citizens.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I will answer that point. The Bill of course is not draconian in any way whatever. It is a modest response to the technology that exists today, and an attempt to look at the technology of tomorrow that we do not know about. That is part of the problem. I regret that I was a bit late and missed the first 20 seconds of the noble Lord’s introduction, so I may have this wrong, but he gave the impression that David Anderson supported his amendment. One only has to go to the report published in August, from which I want to put two sentences on the record. Paragraph 6.16 says:
“There is a clear value in the use of bulk powers to eliminate lines of enquiry, so that resources can be concentrated elsewhere and disruption to the public minimised”.
I do not think we should fetter the security services by this amendment. The other sentence from the report that I want to put on the record is in paragraph 6.47, at point (d):
“Even where alternatives might be available, they are frequently more intrusive than the use of bulk acquisition”.
Most of the bulk acquisition will never, ever be read. The vast majority—99.999%—will never be read or studied by anybody, and it gives a false impression when the noble Lord says that all our telephone calls, internet searches, and web browsing will be read by someone. That is simply not true. What is more, he has been briefed and knows that that is the case. I do not see why the opponents of the Bill, in this House or the other House, should try to give a false impression of what it is trying to do. I hope the noble Lord tests the opinion of the House, because I would like it clearly on the record that he probably has little or no support for his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
I can be brief. I must begin of course by expressing my regret that I do not agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is nothing more insulting than the expression, “If you could only see what passes across my desk, you would take a different view”. I do not use that expression, but I have to admit that I cannot expunge from my memory my experience as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and my contact during that period with the security services. Essentially, we are talking about a question of judgment. My judgment is legitimately assisted by the conclusions of the report from Mr David Anderson, who was, a bit like Moses, dispatched up the mountain and told to come back with tablets of stone. In particular he came back with case studies, and I defy anyone to read them and not be persuaded beyond all doubt of the necessity for the powers that we are discussing today. As my noble friend Lord Carlile has pointed out, Mr Anderson reached the proven conclusion of the operational purpose of three powers and made a further case in respect of the fourth.
Sometimes in the course of these deliberations we confine ourselves to the question of terrorism. As has been mentioned, I think in passing, we should always remember that these are powers that are apt to deal with the question of organised crime and, more particularly, in the rather febrile atmosphere that surrounds the matter, the question of child sexual abuse.
Mr Anderson made the observation, which I doubt anyone would wish to challenge, that the pace of technological change is frightening. We all carry a mobile phone in our pockets; if we think of the first one we ever got some 20 years ago and compare it with the capacity of the one that we now have, that is as powerful an illustration of technological change as one could imagine.
I suppose the question may arise as to whether what we are discussing is necessary and proportionate. I respectfully suggest that the nature of the threat—I noticed as soon as I came into the building that the threat level is still severe—and the experience across the Channel, plus the experience of the security services in dealing with plots, argues beyond peradventure that what is proposed here is both necessary and proportionate. For these reasons, I regret I will not be able to follow my noble friend Lord Paddick when he tests the opinion of the House.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Paddick and the amendment that he has moved. I should say at the outset that I do not doubt for one moment the very severe threats that we face, nor the essential and dedicated work done by our security services and the police. In the coalition Government we had to tackle many of these issues, and the then Deputy Prime Minister was always as impatient with those who were careless about our security as he was with those who were careless about our liberty.
So I understand the reality of the threats that we face. However, I am afraid I cannot agree with my two noble friends who have just spoken. We have to be very clear what we are talking about in the amendment, which is specifically about ICRs. I think that in some of this debate we might have missed that point.
My noble friend Lord Carlile referred to the fact that powers were already in use, but the bulk powers in relation to ICRs obviously cannot be in place because the powers of the Bill granting the requirement to collect ICRs have not come into effect, so they are not collected in that way. I am surprised that my noble friend takes the view that he does, because during the whole course of the debate on the Bill he has made much of the point that he has been consistent. I am not clear why his position has changed so significantly on the collection of ICRs. As I have noted in our previous debates on the subject, on 25 May 2013, writing in the Daily Mail, my noble friend wrote the following:
“I, Lord Reid, Lord West and others of like mind have never favoured the recording of every website visited by every … user, though we have been accused of that”.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My noble friend is playing with language. I have never favoured the recording of every website use we make, and I do not support the recording of them now. It is the availability of the metadata that is important. I ask my noble friend to deal with the example I gave in answer to my noble friend Lord Paddick and tell us whether he thinks it is reasonable.
Lord Oates
I am dealing with the fact that we are granting a power under the Bill, as this House voted only a couple of days ago, for all the websites visited by every user in this country, whether suspected of anything or innocent, to be recorded. That is a matter of fact, not a matter of debate.
We also need to deal with the canard that we have heard from people such as the noble Lord who spoke from the Labour Benches earlier, which is that to question the powers granted under the Bill is somehow to question the integrity of the police or the security and intelligence agencies, to cast aspersions on them. That is nonsense. I have nothing but respect for the difficult, often dangerous and always demanding jobs carried out on our behalf by the police and security services. There is no doubt that the vast majority of them do so with absolute dedication and integrity, but it is absurd to suggest that such powers are not on occasion abused. We know they are. That is a matter of fact; it is recorded in our history. Of course, it is inevitable that that is the case: all such agencies are made up of human beings and we are all subject to frailty. That is why, over the years, those who believe in constitutional democracy have insisted on limiting the powers granted to the state and its agents.
That is why we have such concern about the power granted after our debate the other day to record—I repeat—every website visited by every person in this country. The Government will now have the power to demand that that be recorded. That is why we are concerned about that and about the bulk power in relation to it. That is why I will be supporting my noble friend Lord Paddick and my colleagues on the Front Bench: I think that is rightly a matter of grave concern for liberties in this country.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord accepts one thing: the use of these powers, which are very substantial, could in certain circumstances be essential to obstruct or prevent an otherwise very serious terrorist incident. I am not sure whether he challenges that. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the supporting evidence from David Anderson to that effect. So the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is taking the courageous position—as is the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—of being prepared to accept that risk. In the current situation, nobody in this House has any right to be ignorant that the threat at present is severe—and “severe” may be slightly underplaying the scale of the situation at the moment. We know the situation; there is no point drawing attention to it. We know what is happening in Mosul at present, where the instruction among ISIS is, “Don’t hang around here. Get into some of the capitals of the West and see what you can do”. The message is going out to try to cause a terrorist incident right on our doorstep.
Lord Oates
The noble Lord asks me specifically what I believe. It is very simple. I do not believe that we should record the websites visited by every person in this country. I do not think that is merited; it is not a power used by any other “Five Eyes” country or any constitutional democracy that I know of.
Lord King of Bridgwater
So the noble Lord does not agree with David Anderson or with those who said that this could be an essential asset and ingredient in possibly preventing a serious terrorist attack. He is saying that he does not believe that that is true, if I understand him; if he believes that it is true, he is being extremely courageous, in the words of “Yes Minister”, in taking that position. He is taking responsibility for what might happen to people in this country, which is a very brave thing to do.
I do not want to interfere with the slight divisions of view that are appearing among the Liberal Democrats in this House, but I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in a number of these debates. He is very conscientious and he looks as though he has worked very hard in preparing his brief and making speeches in support of the amendments, but he only ever gives us about half the story. He suggested in earlier debates that we were looking for powers that the agencies have not asked for and did not want, and said that he did not know why they were in the Bill. He knows the police—it is the police who are keen to get those powers. He did not put that in his speech; he did not tell the House the background, or that this was not some quirk of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who wanted to shove stuff into the Bill for his own amusement. That is where that came from. I was disappointed by the noble Lord’s presentation of the amendment, as was exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I do not think I heard a single mention of David Anderson or his report in the presentation of this amendment, although I may be wrong.
What stands out in this whole debate is that the Government know that these are very substantial powers, which nobody would wish to see if we could avoid it—and they are there because of the serious threat we face. The Government have recognised that if you are to have those powers, they must be surrounded by the most substantial safeguards there can be. I am known to be a critic of how much time the Government took before the Bill came forward. A number of us thought that there was an urgency about the matter and tried to get it earlier. But the Government have gone to great lengths, setting out the Anderson report and now, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, producing the code of practice. There was not a single mention from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, of the code of practice, and I do not know whether he has considered it. I should like him to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. What does he think of the code of practice? It is a further safeguard that the Government have included in these proposals.
We have to protect our citizens. A number of us live with the threat of terrorism in our lives, in one way or another, and we know the tragedies it can cause in so many different fields. Sometimes we have to take tough and regrettable steps to make sure that innocent people—that everybody—is protected as far as possible. If that happens, I am determined to see that we do it in a situation and structure in which every possible protection is included against abuse and every possible system of accountability for their exercise is kept up to date and regularly inspected. The very elaborate provision that the Government have made in this Bill generally commands respect, except in one or two quarters, where people are still fighting an old battle about what old rights should be and how there should be no interference. In the modern situation in which we live, we must have proper provision to protect our nation and, at the same time, ensure that there is every possible safeguard against abuse.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I am sure we do not want to prolong this debate. As I said on Monday, I was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny group. You might wonder why a Bishop was invited to be part of that exercise, but I think it was because of this point—the ethics of interference with privacy. I am sorry that the discussion so far has almost become too polarised, because the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making a serious point, which I demonstrate by quoting David Anderson in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He said:
“I think there is a human rights issue in relation to this Bill that dwarfs all the others, and it is the question of the compatibility of bulk collection and retention of data with Article 8 of the European convention”.
The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Oates, make a serious point and we should acknowledge it, even if we come down on the side of the noble Lord, Lord King—as I do—that these powers are necessary and proportionate. The argument is about the safeguards—namely, that the warrant has to be personally signed by the Secretary of State, lapses after six months if it is not renewed, and is subject to the judicial commissioners. The real argument is about that. I do not think internet connection records are in principle different from other things that might be intercepted. However, I acknowledge the serious ethical point that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Oates, raised, even if I come down on the side of the Government and the noble Lord, Lord King, in opposing the amendment.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I fear that we are repeating the debate we had the day before yesterday. If noble Lords look at this amendment, they will see three reasons why they could support it. One is if they feel that bulk data powers are unacceptable in any circumstances. A second is if they feel that the elaborate controls referred to by my noble friend Lord King and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are not good enough. The third is if they object in principle to the collection of internet connection records. From what I have heard this afternoon, the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is entirely the third point. I respect his view on internet connection records but we debated this on Monday and the view of the House was very clear. I fear that we are simply repeating that discussion. We should move on.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, David Anderson QC commented in his report that neither the Bill nor the draft code of practice rules out the future use of the bulk acquisition power for internet connection records. Internet connection records are not currently acquired in bulk but existing legislation already permits the agencies to acquire such records in bulk, albeit there appears to be no present intention to do so.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove an existing legislative provision which could be needed in the future for bulk acquisition—bulk acquisition which David Anderson QC found had contributed significantly to the disruption of terrorist operations and, through that disruption, almost certainly to the saving of lives, and which had also been demonstrated to be crucial in a variety of fields. In addition, any such application in the future to obtain such data by the security and intelligence agencies would be covered by the relevant safeguards in the Bill, including in relation to necessity and proportionality in the interests of national security and the approval process.
This Bill is, among other things, about the appropriate balance between security and privacy. We clearly have a different view from that of some other noble Lords on where that appropriate balance lies. Our view is that, for the reasons I have sought to set out, we are unable to support this amendment and, if it is put to a vote, we shall oppose it.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this amendment would remove the ability for the intelligence agencies to acquire internet connection records in bulk, an issue we have already discussed in Committee and revisited on a number of occasions, as observed by my noble friend Lady Harding. At the time we debated this in Committee, I highlighted the point now made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that this is not a new power introduced by the Bill. This is an existing power. It exists in legislation, albeit, while it is provided for, it is not at present utilised.
As I explained in Committee, it is vital in the current climate, when methods of electronic communication are changing and developing at an exponential rate, that we provide technology-neutral legislation—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We remain of the view that we would not wish to legislate against the possibility of internet connection records being acquired in bulk, should the agencies make a case—and they must make a case—which demonstrates that this might be necessary and proportionate in the interests of national security.
We strongly believe that it is right that the intelligence agencies have the power to acquire communications data in bulk, and David Anderson supported this in his bulk powers review. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, alluded to the observations made by David Anderson. I will refer to only one further quotation: he said that,
“bulk acquisition has contributed significantly to the disruption of terrorist operations and, though that disruption, almost certainly the saving of lives”.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, alluded to some of the examples that were given by David Anderson and worked through in his report.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As regards the comments of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, despite my request that he specifically address the issue of internet connection records, I did not hear him do so. We are not against the bulk acquisition of communications data in general or per se. We oppose only the bulk acquisition of internet connection records as part of those data.
On the question my noble friend Lord Carlile raised about the codes of practice, of course they are comprehensive. However, through this amendment we are trying to prevent internet connection records being acquired in bulk, which is allowed for in the codes of practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was of a different opinion from the one that I quoted—that the Bill was draconian. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to emphasise to the House that it was the current Labour shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, who described the Bill as draconian.
Lord Rooker
For the avoidance of doubt, I understood that—that was the point I made.
Lord Paddick
I did not suggest in any way that David Anderson agreed with this amendment, or that the lists of everybody’s websites would be read, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested.
As regards the comments made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, he referred to case studies in the David Anderson report on bulk data. I cannot emphasise this enough to noble Lords: internet connection records do not currently exist. The telecommunications companies will have to create them. Therefore any case studies in David Anderson’s report do not relate to the bulk collection of internet connection records. Internet connection records do not exist, so they cannot be collected in bulk at the moment.
I acknowledge the great experience of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, and his passion about these issues. He emphasised that everything needs to be done to prevent a terrorist attack, and I agree with him 100%. The point that I made in my opening speech when I quoted David Anderson directly, saying that it was a direct quote from him, was that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6—the agencies responsible for keeping us safe from terrorism—say that they do not need internet connection records. Even the Minister said that at present there is no anticipated need to collect internet connection records to prevent a terrorist attack.
I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for saying that we are making a fundamental point here. The difference between today’s debate and Monday’s debate is that requiring individuals’ internet connection records has to be based on reasonable suspicion. Thanks to the intervention of the Labour Front Bench, the level of the seriousness of the crime that needs to be suspected before those records can be handed over is higher than the Government first suggested. However, this power would allow everybody’s internet connection records to be acquired in bulk by the security agencies with no reasonable suspicion at all.
Lord Paddick
I am sorry but this is Report and I do not have to give way, unless the noble Lord wishes to clarify what I have just said.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I wish to make an intervention. The noble Lord said again that nobody wants this power. Can he explain why it is in the Bill?
Lord Paddick
It is not for me to explain why the Government want in the Bill a power that currently does not exist, because internet connection records do not exist, and which the security services say they do not want but which the noble and learned Lord says might be needed in the future. It is not for me to justify this power; I am saying to the House why I do not believe it is justified. The noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made the point that this is an existing power, but how can you have an existing power to acquire something that will not exist until the Bill is enacted?
I have tried to explain very clearly—although unfortunately some people have not heard what I have said—why we cannot accept this provision, and that is why I want to test the opinion of the House.
“Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to make a major modification of a bulk acquisition warrant, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the modification is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrant to be necessary.(2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matter referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).(3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 153, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal. (4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 153, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification.”
“and section (Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners)(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision.”
Lord Butler of Brockwell
“Offence of breaching safeguards relating to examination of data
(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person selects for examination any communications data obtained under a bulk acquisition warrant,(b) the person knows or believes that the selection of that data for examination does not comply with a requirement imposed by section 160, and(c) the person deliberately selects that data for examination in breach of that requirement.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), or(ii) to a fine,or to both;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or (ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine, or to both.(3) No proceedings for any offence which is an offence by virtue of this section may be instituted—(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.”
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I shall speak also to all the other amendments in this group, Amendments 203B to 203D, 204A to 204F, 205A, 208A to 208C, 209A, 210A and 210B, 215A, 217A and 218A. The sole effect of all the amendments would be to remove from the Bill the power to engage in bulk equipment interference.
This is a new power for the security and intelligence agencies to carry out equipment interference in bulk overseas. It is not a power they currently have and, according to David Anderson QC, it is not something that they currently do. As a result, David Anderson said in his review of bulk powers that the operational case for bulk equipment interference was “not yet proven”. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has said:
“The case for bulk equipment interference was less strong, but nevertheless still there”.—[Official Report, 7/9/2016; col. 1049.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said in Committee, there is a difference between an operational case, let alone an unproven one, and proportionality or desirability. Quoting Mr Anderson, he pointed out that Mr Anderson assessed only the operational cases in his review, saying that the issues of proportionality and necessity were a matter for Parliament—which is why we are debating these amendments today.
We heard in earlier debates about the potentially broad scope of targeted equipment interference warrants. They can specify all equipment used by anyone in a particular organisation or more than one organisation involved in a single investigation or operation; all equipment used by members of a group with a common purpose or engaged in a particular activity; equipment in a particular location or more than one location for the purpose of a single investigation or operation; and equipment being used or that may be used for a particular activity or activities. That is all contained in Clause 108.
Although I realise that the primary focus of this House should be to protect the citizens of this country, I ask noble Lords to consider how they would feel if overseas Governments took our lead and enacted similar legislation that could be deployed against the UK and its citizens. UK citizens’ communications could be acquired through the use of bulk equipment interference warrants if they communicated with others based overseas.
In paragraph 7.37 of his report into bulk powers, David Anderson QC warns that considerable caution is required for a series of reasons. He concludes in paragraph 7.38:
“All this means that bulk EI will require, to an even greater extent than the other powers subject to review, the most rigorous scrutiny not only by the Secretary of State but by the Judicial Commissioners who must approve its use and by the IPC which will have oversight of its consequences”.
It is the nearest David Anderson comes to expressing an opinion on necessity and proportionality and, reading between the lines, it is clear that he is not keen.
For those reasons—and as the Intelligence and Security Committee initially recommended, although it was subsequently persuaded—we believe that bulk equipment interference warrants should be removed from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, these amendments would remove the bulk equipment interference provisions from the Bill. Before I address the amendments specifically, it is worth pausing to reflect briefly on the importance of bulk powers in the round and the very significant steps that the Government have taken to ensure both that a robust operational case has been made for their necessity and that the most rigorous safeguards will apply to their use.
Extremely detailed and extensive scrutiny has been applied to bulk powers during the passage of the Bill, both in Parliament and, of course, by David Anderson QC as part of his bulk powers review. The conclusion of that review was that bulk powers,
“have a clear operational purpose”;
that they,
“play an important part in identifying, understanding and averting threats in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and further afield”;
and that where alternatives exist to their use,
“they were likely to produce less comprehensive intelligence and were often more dangerous (for example to agents and their handlers), more resource-intensive, more intrusive or—crucially—slower”.
The Government have now tabled amendments giving full effect to the sole recommendation of that review, establishing in statute a Technology Advisory Panel to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. We have also accepted an amendment tabled by the Intelligence and Security Committee which introduces a specific offence in the Bill to address deliberate misuse of the bulk powers. We have addressed wider concerns of that committee by adding very significant detail to the Bill on the safeguards that will regulate the use of these powers. I am grateful for the intensive scrutiny that has been applied to the bulk provisions in the Bill and believe that those provisions are all the stronger for it. There should now be no question that these powers are necessary and they are subject to world-leading safeguards.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. He kept saying that this power to conduct bulk equipment interference was absolutely essential to keeping us safe. What I do not understand is, first, why the very broad powers provided and the very broad range of targets that could be specified using targeted equipment interference could not be used in almost every case, rather than this power. Secondly, if bulk equipment interference is absolutely essential, if it could be authorised under existing legislation, why has it never been used by the security services? That is what David Anderson says.
As the Minister took the opportunity to talk about bulk powers in the round, perhaps I might get two things on the record. First, I cannot stress strongly enough that we are not opposed to the bulk acquisition of communications data generally. We are not opposed to bulk powers generally. We have specific issues with specific powers. Secondly, it has been suggested to me that I am standing here saying these things because it is my party policy. My party policy was decided by a working group that I chaired. I wrote the conclusions to that policy paper. I not only agree with the conclusions of that policy paper, I believe that they are absolutely the right conclusions. However, we have made the points that we wanted to make. They are on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(a) ceases to have effect (unless already cancelled), and(b) may not be renewed;and section 166(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision.”
“Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to make a major modification of a bulk equipment interference warrant, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the following matters— (a) whether the modification is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrant to be necessary, and(b) in the case of a major modification adding or varying any description of conduct authorised by the warrant, whether the conduct authorised by the modification is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.(2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matters referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).(3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 173, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal.(4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 173, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification.”
“and section (Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners)(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision.”
“( ) In deciding whether to give an approval under subsection (2) in a case where subsection (1)(b)(i) applies, a senior official must have regard to the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.”
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), there cannot be exceptional and compelling circumstances that make it necessary to authorise the use of the relevant criteria unless—(a) the public interest in obtaining the information that would be obtained by the selection of the material for examination outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege,(b) there are no other means by which the information may reasonably be obtained, and(c) obtaining the information is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.”
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if, in a case where protected material obtained under a bulk equipment interference warrant is to be selected for examination—(a) the selection of the material for examination meets any of the selection conditions in section 179(3)(a) to (c),(b) the purpose, or one of the purposes, of using the criteria to be used for the selection of the material for examination (“the relevant criteria”) is to identify communications or other items of information that, if they were not communications made or (as the case may be) other items of information created or held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose, would be items subject to legal privilege, and(c) the person to whom the warrant is addressed considers that the communications or other items of information (“the targeted communications or other items of information”) are likely to be communications made or (as the case may be) other items of information created or held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose. (3B) The material may be selected for examination using the relevant criteria only if a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State has approved the use of those criteria.(3C) A senior official may give an approval under subsection (3B) only if the official considers that the targeted communications or other items of information are likely to be communications made or (as the case may be) other items of information created or held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.”
“(4A) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may—(a) direct that the item is destroyed, or(b) impose conditions as to the disclosure or otherwise making available of that item.(4B) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner—(a) may require an affected party to make representations about how the Commissioner should exercise any function under subsection (4A), and(b) must have regard to any such representations made by an affected party (whether or not as a result of a requirement imposed under paragraph (a)).(4C) Each of the following is an “affected party” for the purposes of subsection (4B)—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the person to whom the warrant is or was addressed.”
“Additional safeguard for confidential journalistic material
Where—(a) material obtained under a bulk equipment interference warrant is retained, following its examination, for purposes other than the destruction of the material, and(b) it is material containing confidential journalistic material,the person to whom the warrant is addressed must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as is reasonably practicable.(For provision about the grounds for retaining material obtained under a bulk equipment interference warrant, see section 177.)”
Lord Butler of Brockwell
“Offence of breaching safeguards relating to examination of material
(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person selects for examination any material obtained under a bulk equipment interference warrant, (b) the person knows or believes that the selection of that material does not comply with a requirement imposed by section 179 or 180, and(c) the person deliberately selects that material in breach of that requirement.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), or(ii) to a fine,or to both;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine, or to both.(3) No proceedings for any offence which is an offence by virtue of this section may be instituted—(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.”
“section (General definitions: “journalistic material” etc.) (general definitions: “journalistic material” etc.),”
Lord Keen of Elie
“(A1) An intelligence service may not retain, or retain and examine, a bulk personal dataset in reliance on a class BPD warrant if the head of the intelligence service considers that the bulk personal dataset consists of, or includes, protected data.For the meaning of “protected data”, see section (Meaning of “protected data”).”
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this group contains a number of amendments specific to Part 7 of the Bill, which covers bulk personal datasets. I first turn to government Amendments 219, 220, 224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 237, 238, 239, 240 and 265, 266 and 267.
In David Anderson QC’s review of bulk powers he stated:
“It has come to my attention that some”,
bulk personal datasets,
“may contain material that is comparable to the content of communications, and in rare cases even material subject to”,
legal professional privilege. He continued:
“In the light of these facts I have already recommended to the Home Office that consideration be given to the introduction of additional safeguards to the Bill and Code of Practice”.
We welcome David Anderson’s review and the attention he has given to these matters. I stress that it is unlikely to be the case that many bulk personal datasets will contain this sort of material, but in those instances where they do, it is right that it is protected appropriately. These amendments ensure that the Bill provides such protection.
Amendment 219 explains that an intelligence agency may not use a class BPD warrant to,
“retain, or retain and examine, a bulk personal dataset”,
that consists of or includes “protected data”. Amendment 220 would insert a new clause which defines what protected data are in this context. In essence, protected data are the same class of data as “content” in the telecommunications context or “protected material” in the equipment interference context. Protected data in a bulk personal dataset may include, for example, the contents of letters, emails or other documents. They do not include identifying data—for example, data that may help to identify persons, systems, services, locations or events—nor do they include systems data, which are data that enable or facilitate the functioning of any system or service.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Meaning of “protected data”
(1) In this Part, “protected data” means any data contained in a bulk personal dataset other than data which is one or more of the following—(a) systems data;(b) data which falls within subsection (2);(c) data which is not private information. (2) The data falling within this subsection is identifying data which—(a) is contained in the bulk personal dataset,(b) is capable of being logically separated from the bulk personal dataset, and(c) if it were so separated, would not reveal anything of what might reasonably be considered to be the meaning (if any) of any of the data which would remain in the bulk personal dataset or of the bulk personal dataset itself, disregarding any meaning arising from the existence of that data or (as the case may be) the existence of the bulk personal dataset or from any data relating to that fact.(3) For the meaning of “systems data” see section 239(4).(4) In this section, “private information” includes information relating to a person’s private or family life.”
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
“Protected data: power to impose conditions
Where the Secretary of State decides to issue a specific BPD warrant, the Secretary of State may impose conditions which must be satisfied before protected data retained in reliance on the warrant may be selected for examination on the basis of criteria which are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at the time of the selection.”
“and section 190(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision.”
(d) where the Secretary of State has imposed conditions under section (Protected data: power to impose conditions), specify those conditions.”
“( ) Section (Protected data: power to impose conditions) applies in relation to the renewal of a specific BPD warrant as it applies in relation to the issue of such a warrant (whether or not any conditions have previously been imposed in relation to the warrant under that section).”
“Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to make a major modification of a class BPD warrant or a specific BPD warrant, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the modification is necessary on any of the grounds on which the Secretary of State considers the warrant to be necessary.(2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matter referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy). (3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 197, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal.(4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to make a major modification under section 197, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to make the modification.”
“and section (Approval of major modifications by Judicial Commissioners)(4) does not apply in relation to the refusal to approve the decision.”
“( ) In deciding whether to give approval for the purposes of subsection (3)(b), the Judicial Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matter with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).”
“( ) The Secretary of State must also ensure, in relation to every specific BPD warrant which specifies conditions imposed under section (Protected data: power to impose conditions), that arrangements are in force for securing that any selection for examination of protected data on the basis of criteria which are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at the time of the selection is in accordance with the conditions specified in the warrant.”
“Additional safeguards for items subject to legal privilege: examination
(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply if, in a case where protected data retained in reliance on a specific BPD warrant is to be selected for examination—(a) the purpose, or one of the purposes, of using the criteria to be used for the selection of the data for examination (“the relevant criteria”) is to identify any items subject to legal privilege, or(b) the use of the relevant criteria is likely to identify such items.(2) If the relevant criteria are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at the time of the selection, the data may be selected for examination using the relevant criteria only if the Secretary of State has approved the use of those criteria.(3) In any other case, the data may be selected for examination using the relevant criteria only if a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State has approved the use of those criteria.(4) The Secretary of State may give approval for the purposes of subsection (2) only with the approval of a Judicial Commissioner.(5) Approval may be given under subsection (2) or (3) only if—(a) the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the senior official considers that the arrangements mentioned in section 188(6)(d) include specific arrangements in respect of items subject to legal privilege, and(b) where subsection (1)(a) applies, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the senior official considers that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that make it necessary to authorise the use of the relevant criteria.(6) In deciding whether to give an approval under subsection (2) or (3) in a case where subsection (1)(a) applies, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the senior official must have regard to the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.(7) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), there cannot be exceptional and compelling circumstances that make it necessary to authorise the use of the relevant criteria unless—(a) the public interest in obtaining the information that would be obtained by the selection of the data for examination outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege,(b) there are no other means by which the information may reasonably be obtained, and(c) obtaining the information is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.(8) In deciding whether to give approval for the purposes of subsection (4), the Judicial Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matter with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).(9) Subsections (10) and (11) apply if, in a case where protected data retained in reliance on a specific BPD warrant is to be selected for examination— (a) the purpose, or one of the purposes, of using the criteria to be used for the selection of the data for examination (“the relevant criteria”) is to identify data that, if the data or any underlying material were not created or held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose, would be an item subject to legal privilege, and(b) the person to whom the warrant is addressed considers that the data (“the targeted data”) or any underlying material is likely to be data or underlying material created or held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.(10) If the relevant criteria are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at the time of the selection, the data may be selected for examination using the relevant criteria only if the Secretary of State has approved the use of those criteria.(11) In any other case, the data may be selected for examination using the relevant criteria only if a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State has approved the use of those criteria.(12) Approval may be given under subsection (10) or (11) only if the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the senior official considers that the targeted data or the underlying material is likely to be data or underlying material created or held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.(13) In this section, “underlying material”, in relation to data retained in reliance on a specific BPD warrant, means any communications or other items of information from which the data was produced.”
“Additional safeguards for items subject to legal privilege: retention following examination
(1) Where an item subject to legal privilege is retained following its examination in reliance on a specific BPD warrant, for purposes other than the destruction of the item, the person to whom the warrant is addressed must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as is reasonably practicable.(2) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may—(a) direct that the item is destroyed, or(b) impose conditions as to the disclosure or otherwise making available of that item.(3) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner—(a) may require an affected party to make representations about how the Commissioner should exercise any function under subsection (2), and(b) must have regard to any such representations made by an affected party (whether or not as a result of a requirement imposed under paragraph (a)).(4) Each of the following is an “affected party” for the purposes of subsection (3)—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the person to whom the warrant is or was addressed.”
Lord Janvrin
“Offence of breaching safeguards relating to examination of material
(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person selects for examination any data contained in a bulk personal dataset retained in reliance on a class BPD warrant or a specific BPD warrant, (b) the person knows or believes that the selection of that data is in breach of a requirement specified in subsection (2), and(c) the person deliberately selects that data in breach of that requirement.(2) The requirements specified in this subsection are that any selection for examination of the data—(a) is carried out only for the specified purposes (see subsection (3)),(b) is necessary and proportionate, and(c) if the data is protected data, satisfies any conditions imposed under section (Protected data: power to impose conditions).(3) The selection for examination of the data is carried out only for the specified purposes if the data is selected for examination only so far as is necessary for the operational purposes specified in the warrant in accordance with section 194.In this subsection, “specified in the warrant” means specified in the warrant at the time of the selection of the data for examination.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), or(ii) to a fine,or to both;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine, or to both.(5) No proceedings for any offence which is an offence by virtue of this section may be instituted—(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.”
“( ) In deciding whether to give approval for the purposes of subsection (7), the Judicial Commissioner must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.”
Lord Keen of Elie
“( ) In sub-paragraph (1) “enactment” does not include any primary legislation passed or made after the end of the Session in which this Act is passed.”
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I will now address government amendments relating to definitions and extent, and consequential provisions. They aim to ensure consistency within the Bill and with other statutes. Clause 246 contains the usual power to make amendments to other legislation consequential on the provisions of the Bill. Schedule 8 contains a similar power to make amendments consequential on the provisions in that schedule. As currently drafted, the powers would permit the amendment of legislation passed at any time in future.
The power to make consequential amendments to future enactments is necessary because other Bills before Parliament at the same time as this Bill touch upon the powers and public authorities covered by the Bill—such as, for example, the Policing and Crime Bill. Since it is impossible to predict how those Bills, or the Investigatory Powers Bill, may be amended during their parliamentary passage, and which Bill may achieve Royal Assent first, it is necessary to allow for the possibility of consequential amendment of future enactments.
In its recent report on the powers in the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the powers should be restricted to the amending of future enactments passed or made during the current Session. The Government indicated in Committee in this House that they intended to accept this recommendation. Amendments 243 and 281 give effect to the committee’s recommendation, and I commend them to the House.
Amendments 260 and 271 are technical amendments that remove the definition of “person” from the Bill. The Bill’s definition of “person” in Clause 239 was carried over from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It does not apply in relation to Parts 2 or 5 of the Bill, and we have concluded that it is not needed in respect of the other parts. The Interpretation Act definition will apply throughout the Bill. The definition of “person” in Clause 239 is therefore not required and Amendments 260 and 271 simply remove it.
Amendment 268 provides definitions of “journalistic material” and “confidential journalistic material”. It makes it clear where the additional protections provided for in Parts 2 and 5 of the Bill, which we debated here on the first day of Report, will apply. It is of course the case that the Government are seeking to protect legitimate journalism while ensuring that those who wish to do us harm cannot hide behind spurious claims of journalism. For this reason, Amendment 268 makes it clear that material acquired or created to further a criminal purpose is not considered journalistic material in the context of the Bill. This seeks to prevent persons such as those in the media wing of Daesh attracting a safeguard intended for legitimate journalists.
Amendments 280 and 286 clarify the drafting in relation to the definition of a postal operator, and to consequential amendments being made to RIPA. These drafting amendments make no changes to the effect of the provisions. Amendments 282, 283, 284 and 292 make minor amendments to the Security Service Act 1989, Intelligence Services Act 1994, Police Act 1997 and Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in consequence of the updated targeted-interception provisions in Part 2 of this Bill.
Amendment 289 relates to the IPC’s duties to report to Scottish Ministers. Where the Police Act 1997 requires the IPC to report certain matters to Scottish Ministers, this amendment provides that the IPC can do so at any time, as opposed to only in its annual report. Amendment 285 is a minor and consequential amendment. As we have discussed previously, the Bill provides for an interception warrant to be obtained that has the main purpose of obtaining secondary data from communications, rather than intercepting communications content. This amendment simply amends RIPA to make it clear that a notice served under Part 3 of that Act can relate to an interception warrant that has the main purpose only of obtaining secondary data.
Amendment 287 ensures that the provisions of RIPA will make proper reference to powers provided for in this Bill, alongside existing legislative references. It will make two key changes to RIPA. First, it inserts a reference in Section 48 of RIPA to the equipment interference powers provided for in the Bill, which will sit alongside existing references to property interference powers contained in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997. This amendment makes it clear that references to surveillance in Part 2 of RIPA do not include equipment interference activity which will be authorised under the Bill when it becomes the Investigatory Powers Act. This minor amendment will simply ensure consistency with the existing drafting of RIPA.
Secondly, and similarly, the amendment inserts a reference to equipment interference warrants into Schedule 2 to RIPA, which will sit alongside an existing reference to property interference authorisations under Part 3 of the Police Act 1997. Schedule 2 to RIPA relates to the issuing of a Section 49 notice under Part 3 of RIPA. A Section 49 notice allows relevant authorities to require a person to put protected electronic information into an “intelligible form”. In the future, acquisitions of these types of data will be done using equipment interference powers provided for in the Bill, so it is essential that law enforcement agencies continue to be able to use Section 49 notices with the new statutory framework. This amendment ensures that, in future, a law enforcement chief or an appropriate delegate will retain the same powers they currently hold in relation to protected electronic information obtained under existing legislation.
Amendment 288 is a minor, technical amendment that corrects a drafting error in Schedule 10. Paragraph 62 of Schedule 10 amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 to ensure that Scottish Ministers can issue a code of practice in relation to equipment interference. This amendment clarifies that any such code of practice will be limited to targeted equipment interference so far as it relates to the police service or the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, and will not relate to bulk equipment interference, a power which is not authorised by Scottish Ministers.
Finally, Amendments 296 to 300 are technical amendments which simply clarify the extent of the provisions of the Bill in relation to the Crown dependencies. They make two key changes. The first is being made following a request from the Isle of Man Government and will enable the extension of any of the provisions of the Bill, with or without modification, to the Isle of Man. This could assist the Isle of Man in ensuring that its legislative framework for law enforcement can be fully up to date and future-proof, enabling greater consistency with UK law.
The second of these changes will provide a more limited extension of provision for the Channel Islands, simply ensuring that any amendments made by the Bill to the provisions of another Act, such as the consequential amendments detailed at Schedule 10, may be extended to the Channel Islands by Order in Council, if that Act contains such a power. Any extension by Order in Council would of course only take place in consultation with the Governments of Jersey and Guernsey, and with their consent, and they would retain the option to make those amendments in domestic legislation instead. These technical amendments will help to clarify the extent of the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 294 and 295, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady O’Neill, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer and Lord Wallace. The noble Baronesses very much regret that they cannot be present in the House today, and they have asked me to speak to their amendments. I will be brief, as I understand that, without prejudice to the Government’s ultimate position, the Minister is not seeking to divide the House, and we are all most grateful to him for that.
The amendments would have no impact on the security measures in the Bill, nor would they affect the other measures in the Bill in any way. Their sole purpose is to bring into force automatically after Royal Assent Clause 8 and the new clause that was added to the Bill by this House last week by a large majority.
The amendments would deliver cost protections in hacking cases, which Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was enacted to provide for all publication torts. Section 40 is a key part of the Leveson recommendations that the Government promised to implement but has not been commenced. Non-commencement frustrates the will of Parliament and is a breach of the 2013 cross-party agreement. The commencement of these clauses automatically after Royal Assent is necessary to ensure that the device of non-commencement is not employed again on the amendments that the House passed last week. For these reasons, I commend Amendments 294 and 295 to the House.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we discussed the substantive points on this issue on day one of Report. We consider these amendments consequential to the ones we discussed then. Although the Government’s position on the substantive issue remains as we set out last week, we are not opposing these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 245 and 246. These amendments take us back to the question of the reimbursement of the operators’ costs. We have heard frequent assurances about the operators’ compliance costs and that they are to be met, but the words of the Bill do not quite live up to some of the narrative.
Our three amendments cover two alternatives; they would not all be possible. Amendments 244 and 245 would provide that arrangements were in force to secure for the operators the full amount of all relevant costs—“relevant costs” are defined later in the clause—not an appropriate contribution. As Clause 225(1) is framed, the Secretary of State must ensure,
“an appropriate contribution in respect of such of their relevant costs as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
With these two amendments, we seek to take out that element of discretion.
Amendment 246 would provide that if the contribution was not an equal amount, there should be regulations regarding the basis of how the contribution is calculated. Our amendments provide that the Secretary of State should lay regulations to that effect. It will be obvious to noble Lords that our reasons are transparency, equality between operators and the opportunity to consider the criteria—the factors, if you like—applied in calculating the contribution. In other words, our intention is scrutiny, using the opportunity that regulations give for debate of their content.
We have debated this matter on a number of occasions, and the Minister will be well aware of our concern. This is an attempt, at this almost last stage, to pin down just how the contribution will be made. I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendments 244 and 245 are intended to ensure that communications service providers are fully reimbursed for their costs in connection with complying with obligations under the Bill. As the noble Baroness knows, this matter has been considered at length both in this House and in the Commons. It is important to recognise that service providers must not be unduly disadvantaged financially for complying with obligations placed on them aimed at protecting national security or combating crime. Indeed, the Government have a long history of working with service providers on these matters and we have been absolutely clear that we are committed to cost recovery.
I once again take the opportunity to reaffirm to the House a point that both my right honourable friend the former Security Minister and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made very clear in the other place and that I made in Committee: this Government will reimburse 100% of reasonable costs incurred by communications service providers in relation to the acquisition and retention of communications data. This includes both capital and operational costs, including the costs associated with the retention of internet connection records.
The question that the House needs to consider, I submit, is whether it is appropriate for the Parliament of today to tie the hands of future Governments on this issue. That does not mean that we take our commitment lightly, or that future Governments will necessarily or lightly change course. Indeed, it is unlikely that any change in policy will ever take place. For example, the current policy has not changed since the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and so has survived Governments of three different colours, or combinations of colours.
The Bill adds further safeguards, requiring a data retention notice to set out the level of contribution that applies. This ensures that the provider must be consulted on any changes to the cost model and means that the provider could seek a review of any variation to the notice which affected the level of contribution.
Another question that I hope the House will consider is whether a communications service provider should be able to derive commercial benefit as a result of the obligations imposed on them in relation to the other powers under the Bill. Sometimes, it may be necessary for a communications service provider to upgrade part of its infrastructure to comply with an obligation imposed on it under a technical capability notice. As the communications service providers may be able to derive some business benefit from that upgrade, it is right that the legislation allows for the contribution to the costs to be appropriate to the circumstances.
Some noble Lords have expressed concern about the term “reasonable costs” and asked what it means. I hope I can provide some reassurance on that point. Significant public funding is made available to companies to ensure that they can provide assistance to public authorities in tackling terrorism, crime and other threats. As costs are reimbursed from public funds, the codes of practice make very clear that companies should take value for money into account when procuring, operating and maintaining the infrastructure required to comply with a notice. Were a company to select a solution that did not deliver best value for public funds, I am sure noble Lords would agree that it is absolutely right that the Government would need to consider carefully whether those costs were reasonable and therefore whether it was appropriate to reimburse the company in full.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 246 acknowledges that there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for a communications service provider to be reimbursed less than its full costs. However, we do not think her proposed regulations provide the required flexibility. As I just explained, communications service providers may receive some business benefit from the changes made to their systems and it is appropriate that the Government are able to discuss these matters with them on a case-by-case basis, rather than be bound by general regulations. Indeed, while communications service providers would welcome an amendment to require 100% cost recovery in all cases, I suggest that they are unlikely to welcome regulations which enshrine in law circumstances where they would not receive full reimbursement.
I hope I have allayed any concerns about the Government’s position on costs and accordingly invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, until the last two or three sentences, I thought the noble Earl had made a much better case for regulations than I did. I am a little worried about his argument that regulations cannot provide for flexibility. Flexibility is not necessarily bad, but how it is exercised should be transparent, and that is what my amendment is driving at.
The noble Earl started his remarks by saying that the operators should not be “unduly disadvantaged”, and it is those words which caveat the commitment that has troubled us throughout our debates. We have tried, particularly with the third amendment, to meet the points made by the Government. I will obviously not pursue this any further; we have reached the end of the road. I have no doubt that someone will draw to our attention any problem in practice in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In a case where—(a) a national security notice would require the taking of any steps, and(b) in the absence of such a notice requiring the taking of those steps, the taking of those steps would be lawful only if a warrant or authorisation under a relevant enactment had been obtained,the notice may require the taking of those steps only if such a warrant or authorisation has been obtained.”
Earl Howe
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other government amendments. Government Amendments 247 to 250 clarify the activity that can be authorised by a national security notice to provide greater reassurance to telecommunications operators to whom such a notice may be given. These amendments also respond to concerns raised in the Commons that the detail set out in the draft code of practice was clearer than the provisions in the Bill.
Clause 228 states that the Secretary of State may give such a notice to a telecommunications operator in the UK, requiring the taking of such specified steps as are considered necessary in the interests of national security. The type of support that may be required includes the provision of services or facilities which would help the intelligence agencies to safeguard the security of their personnel and operations, or provide assistance with an emergency as defined in Section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
Amendment 248 makes it clear that a national security notice cannot be used for the primary purpose of acquiring communications or data. The proposed amendments further clarify that, in any circumstance where the taking of a step set out in the notice would involve the acquisition of private data, any interference with privacy must be authorised by an appropriate warrant or other authorisation under the Bill, or another relevant statute, where it is available. Therefore, a notice, of itself, cannot authorise as its primary purpose an intrusion into an individual’s privacy.
I should like to emphasise here that this power can be exercised only if the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner are satisfied that the conduct required by a notice is necessary and proportionate to what is sought to be achieved.
In addition, Amendment 250 makes it clear that any conduct required under a notice is lawful for all purposes, providing reassurance for telecommunications operators that, when conduct is carried out in accordance with the requirements of a notice, the operator will not risk being found to be in breach of any other legal requirement.
I hope that these amendments reassure noble Lords that a national security notice cannot be used to circumvent the need to obtain a warrant or authorisation, but neither could it prohibit the acquisition of private data when such conduct has been appropriately authorised.
( ) In this section “relevant enactment” means”
“( ) Conduct required by a national security notice is to be treated as lawful for all purposes (to the extent that it would not otherwise be so treated).”
Lord Paddick
“(c) specifying the distinct service or product to which the notice applies”
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendments 250A and 251A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, relate to technical capability notices through which the Secretary of State can require an operator to have a capacity to provide any assistance necessary that might be required to give effect to the powers under the Bill. We have received representations on behalf of operators asking that those notices should be specific about the distinct service or product to which the notice applies, rather than a blanket, “You must have the capability to do anything we may require you to do under the powers contained in legislation”. Amendment 250A is intended to have that effect, while Amendment 251A tries to limit the scope of technical capability notices. The power to issue a technical capability notice applies to any provider capable of being considered a telecommunications provider under the very broad definitions in the Bill. It would not be proportionate or necessary for this power to be so broad. The amendment aims to narrow the definition to exclude services that are not primarily communications services, even when there may be a communications element. Whether the wording of our amendment achieves that is a matter for debate, but that is what is intended. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
I can certainly tell the noble Lord that Yahoo! was one of the operators, but I do not have a list to hand.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 250A would define a technical capability notice as,
“specifying the distinct service or product to which the notice applies”.
I do not believe this amendment is necessary. The safeguards that apply to the giving of a notice under the Bill already ensure that a technical capability notice cannot be of a generic nature. I will not go into detail here about the lengthy process that must be undertaken before a notice can be given; we have discussed them at length previously and we will undoubtedly review them again shortly during our discussions on encryption. But it might be helpful for me to summarise.
Before giving a notice, the Secretary of State must consult the company concerned. This process will ensure that the company is fully aware of which services the notice applies to. The decision to issue a notice must be approved by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner. The obligations set out in the notice must be clear so that the Secretary of State and judicial commissioner can take a view as to the necessity and proportionality of the conduct required. As I have already mentioned, we propose a similar role for the judicial commissioner when a notice is varied. The operator may raise any concerns about the requirements to be set out in the notice, including any lack of clarity regarding their scope, during the consultation process. The operator may also seek a formal review of their obligations, as provided for in Clause 233. The safeguards which apply to the giving of a notice have been strengthened during the Bill’s passage through Parliament, and will ensure that the regime provided for under the Bill will be more targeted than that under existing legislation. It is for these reasons that I consider the amendment unnecessary.
Amendment 251A seeks to narrow the category of operators to whom a technical capability notice could be given. This change would exclude operators that provide services that have a communications element but are not primarily a communication service. This amendment, which has already been discussed in the Commons, is also unnecessary and, in my view, risks dangerously limiting the capabilities of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. We are aware that the manner in which criminals and terrorists communicate is diversifying, as they attempt to find new ways to evade detection. We cannot be in a situation where terrorists, paedophiles and other criminals can use technology to escape justice. As David Anderson said,
“no-go areas for law enforcement should be minimised as far as possible, whether in the physical or the digital world”.
It is important that the Government can continue to impose obligations relating to technical capabilities on a range of operators to ensure that law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies can access, in a timely manner, communications of criminals and terrorists using less conventional services, such as those offered by gaming service providers and online marketplaces. It may be appropriate to exclude certain categories of operators from obligations under this clause, such as small businesses, but it is our intention to use secondary legislation to do so. It would not be appropriate to impose blanket exemptions on services that have a communications element but are primarily not a communication service, since to do so would make it clear to terrorists and criminals that communications over such systems could not be monitored.
For all the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beith (LD)
Before the noble Earl sits down, I refer to a point which at least needs to be borne in mind in drafting regulations. In most circumstances, if the Government impose upon a business an obligation of some kind, and behave totally unreasonably in doing so—or the business thinks that the Government are behaving unreasonably—the matter will end up in public discussion and the company has the weapon of saying to the public at large, “The Government are asking us to do something unreasonable”. That must not happen in these circumstances because clearly secrecy must be maintained. Therefore, the company is in a weaker position than it would be in the normal exchange between government and business. I hope that Ministers will recognise that fact.
Earl Howe
With the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point, which I think will come up in the next group of amendments when we discuss encryption because it is centre stage in that issue. He is absolutely right and I hope that I can assuage his concerns in the next debate.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the Minister, particularly for his explanation around Amendment 251A. I completely accept that the whole range of ways in which people can communicate potentially needs to be covered. I am encouraged by the fact that there may be some exceptions in secondary legislation. It is unfortunate that we do not have sight of that before I withdraw this amendment but life is like that.
Bearing in mind the fact that the Minister did not articulate any downside to Amendment 250A, I wonder why the Government will not accept it, given that it appears not to limit the Government’s action in any way. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
“( ) For the purposes of this section, “electronic protection” does not include electronic protection applied directly by the communications device or operating system of the end user which has the effect of encrypting the communications data in transit such that the relevant telecommunications operator does not have a means to access the associated communications data or content.”
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, noble Lords who have followed my limited contributions to the Bill will know that I take a fairly robust approach in support of what the Government seek to do in it. Indeed, they may even be slightly perplexed that I have tabled this amendment, which is supported by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, given the slightly testy exchanges that have occurred once or twice during the passage of the Bill. However, my philosophy throughout has always been clear—namely, that by and large this Bill is needed to update current legislation and to protect the public. However, all the measures have to be tested in terms of the balance that they strike between protecting the public and their potential invasion of privacy. We have debated that issue but in this case the disbenefits I am concerned about are the extent to which what the Government may be trying to do—the Minister will no doubt explain what that is in more detail in a few minutes—under the Bill as drafted will weaken the security that people would otherwise have.
The Bill provides the Home Secretary with the power to require a communications provider to install some sort of technical capability to provide data on request, including where those data would otherwise be encrypted and are therefore not so easily available. The Bill includes an impressive array of safeguards. The Home Secretary is required to apply a series of tests before they make a decision to serve an order on a communications provider, and a process of consultation and discussion has to go forward. Those measures are all designed to ensure that not only is the Home Secretary properly informed in making that judgment but using the power is practical and reasonable. Indeed, the Bill emphasises the importance of the test of something being reasonably practical and technically feasible. I have asked for an explanation of the precise distinction between reasonably practical and technically feasible. I accept that there may be a distinction.
A whole series of tests applies under those circumstances but we do not know how those tests might be applied in future or what the Home Secretary might decide. Therefore, we cannot know how a future Home Secretary, or the present Home Secretary, would interpret what is and is not practicable and reasonable. In particular, we face an ambiguity—at least I think there is an ambiguity here—over what it will mean for end-to-end encrypted services. End-to-end encrypted services allow an end-user to send a message via a particular service which can be opened and read only by the person to whom it is sent. That is an important reassurance which we would all like to have in terms of our private communications. The company that conveys that message to the other person—the company in the middle—has no ability to see that message. The communications provider has provided that as a service because it is believed that that is what customers want.
Not all communications providers do that. Some provide a service where it is clear—it says so on the tin—that they will have the option to be aware of what is in the message because they use that to sell advertising. However, not all communications providers operate on that basis. The purpose of that encryption arrangement is to ensure that the data are protected by means of encryption against outsiders looking at them. The encryption key is held only by the person who sends the message and the person who receives it. Nobody else in between has that capacity. The potential implication of that is that the communications provider cannot find a way to discover the content of such a message, even if it wanted to and even if required to do so by the Government.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I will speak to our Amendments 252 to 254 and the other amendments in this group. To save the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, having to get to his feet, this one is from Apple.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, just outlined, it is essential that end-to-end encryption is not compromised by technical capability notices. I anticipate that the Minister might say that Clause 231(3)(c) covers this in that it would not be technically feasible for the operator to remove electronic protection of this nature, but we support this amendment and believe that it needs to be explicit in the Bill. However, we do not believe that this amendment covers other forms of encryption. Our Amendment 252 is intended to protect UK operators from the real or perceived disadvantage they would be placed under if technical capability notices required them to make modifications that would make their product or service less secure than overseas operators, who may not be subject to or may refuse to comply with a similar technical capability notice.
Similarly, Amendment 253 is intended to prevent a technical capability notice stopping UK operators from innovating to improve the levels of security or encryption provided by their products and services in a way that would disadvantage them against overseas operators, which may not be subject to or refuse to comply with a similar technical capability notice.
Amendment 254 is intended to deal with the criticism of our amendment in Committee by the Minister, who said that he believed that it,
“would remove the Government’s ability to give a technical capability notice to telecommunications operators requiring them to remove encryption from the communications of criminals, terrorists and foreign spies”.—[Official Report, 13/7/16; cols. 272-73.]
This new amendment makes it clear that technical assistance can be given to enable interpretation and deciphering provided that it does not open the door to unauthorised access to encrypted materials by criminals, terrorists and foreign spies—essentially, what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, just said.
Amendment 252A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Strasburger, is an attempt to combine all the other amendments in this group into a much better-worded amendment. I look forward to hearing from him why this might be the case.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I shall rise to that opportunity. Amendment 251, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Hamwee, addresses one particular kind of encryption—namely end-to-end encryption—and it is very good as far as it goes, which is end-to-end encryption. My own Amendment 252A is also in this group and is complementary to Amendment 251. It is, in my humble opinion, a neater way of dealing with encryption that is not end-to-end encrypted than the combination of the other amendments in this group: Amendments 252, 253 and 254. It is an alternative to them.
We have been around the block many times on the subject of encryption in the context of Clauses 229 to 231. It has come up several times in our debates on the Bill, as well as in questions in this House and in the Joint Committee on the Bill. Yet we are no closer to a clear and unambiguous understanding of the Government’s position on this vital issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has so eloquently said.
It might help if we start from common ground. I doubt that any noble Lord, myself included, would deny the authorities the option of requiring an operator to decrypt a communication where: the operator already possesses the capability to do so; the sender or receiver of the communication is genuinely suspected of committing or planning a serious crime; and the appropriate process has been followed and the action has been judged necessary and proportionate by a judicial commissioner. I do not think that anybody would argue about that.
I believe there is more common ground. Ministers have repeatedly confirmed that the Government fully accept that many uses of the internet that are now an essential part of everyday life, both for individuals and for large organisations, cannot possibly continue to happen without the security provided by unbreakable encryption.
If we take those two points as read, we are left with two questions about what happens if the operator is not able to decrypt the communication. The first is: should the Secretary of State be able to force an operator to redesign its product so that in future its encryption has a weakness that permits the operator, or perhaps GCHQ, to read a suspect’s messages? The other question is: should the Secretary of State have the power to prevent an operator introducing new or modified encryption services which neither the authorities nor the operator can break? The answer to both those questions is an unequivocal, “No, the Secretary of State should not have those powers”, and noble Lords will be hard pressed to find a single cryptography specialist who has a different view. If the Government concur, as I hope they do, they should have no problem accepting Amendments 251 and 252A, which would remove the ambiguity in the current drafting.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, if I could be convinced that the same rules applied everywhere on the globe—because we are talking about a global function—in respect of the rule of law, freedom, transparency and privacy protection, then I might have a bit of sympathy with the business operators, as we will call them.
I had the privilege of being among those serving on the RUSI panel. We had a discussion with the providers, but they did not all want to come and sit round the table at the same time—I recall two or three sessions—because they are competitors. We put it to them—it was not original; it had come up elsewhere—that not one of these companies, whether Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo or Microsoft, would ever have been able to start what is now their global business in countries such as Russia, Iran and China. Yet they have become global and make enormous profits, although I will not go into the issue of them paying their taxes.
These providers hide behind the fact that the countries where they are able to start and function have the rule of law and are democracies where you can challenge Governments in the courts and get redress, yet they then go and operate in countries where they cannot do that. If they all said, “When we operate in China, we’re going to produce all our phones fully encrypted, exactly as we do for everybody else. The Chinese Government are allowing us to close end to end. They don’t want to know what their citizens are saying”, then fine, but I do not believe that that is the case, and that is part of the problem.
My noble friend Lord Harris touched on the issue of other Governments, but we can legislate only for the UK. I fully understand that, yet half of an email sent from my office upstairs to a colleague here might be split and end up travelling through the rest of Europe or America or half-way round the world. That is how the system works. Just because you are emailing someone in this country from within this country, you cannot guarantee that the entire message will stay in this country while it is being whizzed round the world. The system does not work as I originally thought it did. So we can legislate only for this country and messages get split up around the world.
The fact is that the business plans and business operations of these companies depend on open, transparent and democratic countries with the rule of law, yet they are willing to work in countries where there is no rule of law and where there are corrupt regimes, such as in Russia, or undemocratic regimes, as in China. These are countries with huge populations and the companies can do business there according to a different business plan from the one that applies here. From the point of view of those who are there to protect us, that has to lead to a suspicion that at some point we might need a bit more information than we have and that we might need to ask for that to be provided.
I take second place to no one on the protection of privacy, but the fact is that you cannot discuss this issue just in the context of the UK or Europe; it is global, and the rules do not apply equally across the globe. If we take that on board, I think we ought to have a fair degree of sympathy with how the Government will operate these measures.
I have listened to other people and have read more about this matter since finishing our work on the RUSI panel, and the fact is that there is a great reluctance to have these powers. In a democracy there is an incredible reluctance for private information to be treated in this way, but at the end of the day there will be proportionality and our people will be tested on the need for these powers. One of the raisons d’être of the Bill is to put in second and third checks, so those with the powers will be watched and the watchers will be watched, and that is how we can give the public confidence. I do not think that we ought to write the Bill to suit the business operators’ original business plans, because they are not implementing them on an equal basis across the globe. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reject these amendments.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Before my noble friend sits down, to be honest I think that he has slightly misunderstood the point that has been made. I am not putting this forward because of the business models of particular companies; I am proposing it because of the inherent weakness that could conceivably be created. His argument, if I understood what he just said, is that because Russia or China may require, or may force because the business there is so valuable, a communications service provider to put in one of these back doors, therefore we need to have the same facility. The point is that, because it is a global provision, if a back door is built in—because Russia or China or wherever else has demanded it—then a technical capability notice would operate because the operator would have that existing facility. That is precisely the circumstance in which a technical capability notice could be served. This amendment seeks to exclude a requirement from our Government that it should be created at our behest, which other people would then use.
Lord Rooker
I take on board what my noble friend is saying. I fully accept the distinction he makes but, basically, although I am a customer of some of these companies, I do not trust them—they will tell us that this has been built in and is secure, but do deals with those other regimes.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, there have not been very many points in the course of this legislation on which I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, but on this point I do. Amendment 252A raises a very interesting and important point.
Although I am absolutely in favour, as you would imagine, of the Government having the opportunity to access the communications of anybody who is a threat to us—due to terrorism, criminal activities or anything of that sort—there is a competing national security issue here of this country having effective cybersecurity. We have seen the way in which hostile Governments have been seeking to intervene in the American elections, and we have seen all sorts of attempts by hostile states, criminal groups and others to use cyber weaknesses to take forward hostile agendas. Therefore, there is a genuine national security interest in ensuring that, as far as we can, our citizens can communicate securely and privately when they are not going about mischievous business.
The idea that we should take into consideration the requirement not to place non-targeted customers or others at additional security risk is an entirely legitimate one, and I am very interested to hear how the Minister would want to interpret this. We have competing national security issues here and it is a point well made.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we have had some rather good discussions with the tech companies. In Committee, we put in some of the amendments that they suggested to us, and some of the government amendments we have been dealing with over the past few days reflect that. I thank the tech companies for their very responsible attitude in continuing discussions with the Government over this period. Certainly with us they have been open, flexible and fairly straight as to what is possible and what the dangers are for them—for example, and as we have discussed, whether a weakness in end-to-end encryption could actually undermine the security that banks and others rely on in their systems—and for their clients, public confidence and national security. The companies recognise that they have a duty of care and loyalty to their customers, while fully respecting the law of the land in which they operate and the legal demands on their staff, wherever they are located.
In their discussions with us, companies have sought clarity that they will not be asked, effectively, to create a new system that would breach end-to-end encryption. They need this clarity for their shareholders and customers’ peace of mind because the reality is that they could never be forced to create a new computer program to hack their own security. I for one cannot imagine the noble Earl, Lord Howe, or anyone else standing over a hapless computer programmer shouting, “Break into it!”, if that company did not want to do it or the computer genius was on a go-slow that day. The idea that you could force somebody to create a program that the company and the employee did not want to is probably not possible.
Given that, the reality is that the things the Government want to ask will happen only when there is a good working understanding between the security services and the company. Therefore, if the tech companies want this clarity as set out in Amendment 251—as we know they do—our interest is to hear from the Minister just what the obstacles are to giving them the clarity that they seek.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to speak at somewhat greater length than usual in responding to these amendments. I recognise the concern that lies behind them and I also recognise that, although we debated the Bill’s provisions on encryption in Committee, there is a need to correct a number of misconceptions that have been expressed and to set out the reality of the Government’s position on encryption. I would also like to make clear what the provisions in the Bill do and, crucially, what they do not do, and to explain why these provisions are so important to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. I hope that by, setting this out, I can reassure noble Lords that the amendments are not necessary.
As we have made clear before, the Government recognise the importance of encryption. It keeps people’s personal data and intellectual property secure and ensures safe online commerce. The Government work closely with industry and businesses to improve their cybersecurity. For example, GCHQ plays a vital information assurance role, providing advice and guidance to enable government, industry and the public to protect their IT systems and use the internet safely. Indeed, the director of GCHQ said in March that he is accountable to the Prime Minister just as much, if not more, for the state of cybersecurity in the UK as he is for intelligence collection.
In the past two years, the security and intelligence agencies have disclosed vulnerabilities in every major mobile and desktop platform, including the big names that underpin British business. You do not have to take the Government’s word for that. In September 2015, Apple publicly credited the information assurance arm of GCHQ with the detection of a vulnerability in its operating system for iPhones and iPads, which could otherwise have been exploited by criminals to disrupt devices and extract information from them. As a result, this vulnerability could be fixed.
The assertion that the Government are opposed to encryption or would legislate to undermine it is fanciful. However, the Government and Parliament also have a responsibility to ensure that our security and intelligence services and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities necessary to keep our citizens safe. Encryption is now almost ubiquitous and is the default setting for most IT products and online services. While this technology is primarily used by law-abiding citizens, it can also be used—easily and cheaply—by terrorists and other criminals. Therefore, it can only be right that we retain the ability, as currently exists in legislation, to require a telecommunications operator to remove encryption in limited circumstances, subject to strong controls and safeguards. If we do not provide for this ability, then we must simply accept that there can be areas online beyond the reach of the law where criminals can go about their business unimpeded and without the risk of detection. That would be both irresponsible and wrong.
That is our starting principle, and it is one that we share with David Anderson QC. I have quoted this before, but he stated in his investigatory powers review, A Question of Trust:
“My first principle is that no-go areas for law enforcement should be minimised as far as possible, whether in the physical or digital world”.
This principle was also shared by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and the Science and Technology Committee, both of which recognised that, in tightly prescribed circumstances, it should remain possible for our law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence services to be able to access unencrypted communications or data. That is exactly what Clauses 229 to 234 of the Bill provide for: strong safeguards to ensure that obligations to remove encryption can be imposed only in limited circumstances and subject to rigorous controls.
Clause 229 enables the Secretary of State to give a technical capability notice to a telecommunications operator in relation to interception, communications data or equipment interference. As part of maintaining a technical capability, the Bill makes clear at Clause 229(5)(c) that the obligations that may be imposed on an operator by the Secretary of State can include the removal of encryption. Before a technical capability notice is given, the Secretary of State must specifically consider the technical feasibility and likely cost of complying with it. Clause 231(4) provides that this consideration must explicitly take account of any obligations to remove encryption.
The Secretary of State must also consult the relevant operator before a notice is given. The draft codes of practice, which were published on 4 October, make clear that should the telecommunications operator have concerns about the reasonableness, cost or technical feasibility of any requirements to be set out in the notice, which of course includes any obligations relating to the removal of encryption, it should raise these concerns during the consultation process.
We have also amended the Bill to make clear that the Secretary of State may give a technical capability notice only where he or she considers that it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and, under Clause 230, that decision must also now be approved by a judicial commissioner, placing the stringent safeguard of the double lock on to any giving of a notice to require the removal of encryption. Clause 2 of the Bill, the privacy clause, also makes explicit that, before the Secretary of State may decide to give a notice, he or she must have regard to the public interest in the integrity and security of telecommunications systems.
In addition, a telecommunications operator that is given a technical capability notice may refer any aspect of the notice, including obligations relating to the removal of encryption, back to the Secretary of State for a review. In undertaking such a review, the Secretary of State must consult the Technical Advisory Board in relation to the technical and financial requirements of the notice, as well as a judicial commissioner in relation to its proportionality. We have amended the review clauses in the Bill to strengthen these provisions further. Where the Secretary of State decides that the outcome of the review should be to vary or confirm the effect of the notice, rather than to revoke it, that decision must be approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
The Bill also makes absolutely clear that, in line with current practice, obligations imposed on telecommunications operators to remove encryption may relate only to encryption applied by or on behalf of the company on whom the obligation is being placed. That ensures that such an obligation cannot require a telecommunications operator to remove encryption applied by other companies to data transiting their network. As we have already outlined, we have also now tabled a government amendment that would further strengthen the Bill’s provisions on technical capability notices. This amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State may vary a notice only where they consider that it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The amendment also makes clear that, in circumstances where a notice is being varied in such a way that would impose new obligations on the operator, the variation must be approved by a judicial commissioner.
Furthermore, obligations imposed under a technical capability notice to remove encryption require the relevant operator to maintain the capability to remove encryption when it is subsequently served with a warrant, notice or authorisation, rather than requiring it to remove encryption per se. That means that companies will not be forced to hand over encryption keys to the Government. Such a warrant, notice or authorisation will be subject to the double lock of Secretary of State and judicial commissioner approval, and the company on whom the warrant is served will not be required to take any steps, such as the removal of encryption, if they are not reasonably practicable steps for that company to take. So a technical capability notice could not, in itself, authorise an interference with privacy. It would simply require a capability to be maintained that would allow a telecommunications operator to give effect to a warrant quickly and securely including, where applicable, the ability to remove encryption.
That is an enormously long list of safeguards. Indeed, it is difficult to think what more the Government could do. These safeguards ensure that an obligation to remove encryption under Clause 229 of the Bill will be subject to very strict controls and may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate, technically feasible and reasonably practicable for the relevant operator to comply. Let me be clear: the Bill’s provisions on encryption simply maintain and clarify the current legal position, and apply strengthened safeguards to those provisions. They will mean that our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies maintain the ability to require telecommunications operators to remove encryption in very tightly defined circumstances.
I would also like to make absolutely clear what the Bill does not provide for on encryption.
Lord Beith
Could the Minister help those of us who are not deeply technical in these matters? We fear that circumstances by their nature cannot be technical and defined. In at least some cases, the consequences of serving a notice would be that the operator would have to create a significant weakness, which would apply far beyond the objective for which the notice was being served, and the operator would have to say in future to its customers, “This system is not as strong as we would like it to be”.
Earl Howe
We come back to the test of reasonable practicability here. I am about to come on to what the Bill does not provide for on encryption and I hope that this will help the noble Lord.
The Bill does not ban encryption or do anything to limit its use. The Bill will not be used to force providers to undermine their business models, to create so-called back doors or to compromise encryption keys. It will not be used to prevent new encrypted products or services from being launched and it will not undermine internet security.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am very grateful for the detailed exposition that has been given. The Minister says that the Bill will not be used to do those things. Can he confirm that it cannot be used to do those things?
Earl Howe
My Lords, some noble Lords have suggested the Bill’s provisions cause a weakening in encryption, which I think is the central point that the noble Lord is getting at. Many of the biggest companies in the world rely on strong encryption to provide safe and secure communications and e-commerce, but retain the ability to access the content of their users’ communications for their own business purposes, such as advertising, as we have heard. These companies’ reputations rest on their ability to protect their users’ data. This model of encryption can, and does, maintain users’ security. I do not think that anyone would dispute that.
Before I come on to the individual amendments, it would be helpful to address a number of specific points that were raised in relation to encryption. There was a suggestion that a company should never be asked to do something that it does not already do. Such an approach would of course, at a stroke, remove our ability to use any of the powers in the Bill, including carrying out any interception of terrorists’ and serious criminals’ communications, because companies do not do this in the normal course of their business.
There was a suggestion that equipment interference would do away with the need for these provisions. It will not. Equipment interference is no substitute for having a company’s assistance. Even if it were, there are only a very small number of very clever people who are able to carry out equipment interference. There will never be the capacity to deploy them on each and every operation.
Finally, there was a suggestion that encryption is not a problem for the security and intelligence agencies. The heads of those agencies have repeatedly made clear that ubiquitous encryption is one of the most difficult challenges they face.
I now turn to the individual amendments, because I hope that this will clarify the picture further. Amendment 251 seeks to preclude an obligation to remove encryption from being imposed under a technical capability notice in relation to end-to-end encrypted services. I hope that the points I have already made make clear why the proposed amendment is not necessary and indeed why it is not desirable. As I have set out, the Government recognise the vital importance of encryption. Nothing in the Bill does anything to limit its use, and that of course includes the use of end-to-end encryption. But I have also set out the dangers of creating a guaranteed safe space online for those who would seek to do the public harm such as terrorists and other serious criminals, and I am afraid that that is exactly what this amendment would do. The amendment seeks to make explicit provision in law for there to be certain online services that criminals can use to go about their business unimpeded with no fear of being caught. That is not a position that any responsible Government or, I hope, Parliament could support.
What we must ensure is that the Bill enables us to work collaboratively with individual telecommunications operators to establish what steps are reasonably practicable for them to take, considering a range of factors including technical feasibility and likely cost. Any decision will have regard to the particular circumstances of the case, recognising that there are many different models of encryption, including many different models of end-to-end encryption, and that what is reasonably practicable for one telecommunications operator may not be for another.
As I have already said, this is not about asking companies to undermine their existing business models; it is about working with them to find a solution to ensure both that their customers’ data remain secure and that their services cannot be exploited by individuals who pose a threat to the UK. So in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I can confirm that these provisions cannot be used to introduce back doors or undermine internet security.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, if the noble Earl is so confident that none of the unintended consequences listed in Amendment 252A can occur, and that the Government do not want them to occur, what is his objection to putting them into the Bill?
Earl Howe
We already have a wide range of safeguards which I have listed. I do not see that it is necessary to go down the road the noble Lord is advocating because of the dangers that I have pointed out. These amendments would create safe spaces which I am sure that neither he nor any noble Lord would desire to occur.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Earl for his detailed response and for reiterating the welcome and voluminous safeguards that are set out in the Bill. They are important and valuable, and they give me confidence about the context of the whole Bill. However, the argument with which he concluded does not quite hold together and there is an elision between different issues. The noble Earl has given an absolute assurance, I think on the basis of a piece of paper that was handed to him, that it cannot be used to require a communications service provider to build a back door or to create one in a future area. But then he said that we must not put in the Bill something that creates a safe space. Either the Government’s position is that this cannot be used to require a company to produce a back door, in which case the safe space exists and presumably the Government are not happy with their own legislation, or it is the case that the Bill could require a communications service provider to build such a back door.
We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, that what we are trying to do here is balance two national security concerns: the national security concern to prevent terrorism and so on and the national security concern about making it slightly easier for cybercriminals. These are very important issues. If the Government are clear that, as a result of the Bill, a technical capability notice could not require an operator to build a back door that would otherwise not exist, it is important to set that out in the Bill. If we are in a position where techUK says—as it has in the briefing it circulated to me and, I am sure, to other noble Lords—that this is ambiguous, perhaps it is the responsibility of the Government to remove that ambiguity and make the position clear. I do not really want to have to divide the House on this matter, so between now and Third Reading, is the noble Earl prepared to turn the unequivocal assurance he has given that it cannot be used in this way into an amendment to the Bill that will remove that ambiguity?
Earl Howe
With the leave of the House, I hope I can help the noble Lord on this because I do not believe that the Bill is contradictory. First, the term “back door” has been used, but I do not think that is a helpful or accurate way of describing the Bill’s provisions. “Back door” is in everyone’s judgment a loosely defined term. It is used incorrectly to imply that the Bill would enable our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to gain unrestricted access to a telecommunications operator’s services or systems, thereby undermining the security of those services—to force that to happen. That is absolutely not the case. The Bill enables our agencies to require telecommunications operators to remove encryption themselves, only in tightly defined circumstances: where they have applied the encryption themselves; where it has been applied on their behalf; where it is reasonably practicable for them to remove it; and where doing so is required to comply with a relevant warrant, notice or authorisation.
I come back to the point I made earlier. This is about the Government being able to sit down with companies and reach agreement with them on the basis of what is reasonably practicable, affordable and so on. It would not be responsible for any Government to deny themselves the possibility of doing that and discussing what in all the circumstances is reasonably practicable for the company, and for the company to agree to do it.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Again I am grateful to the noble Earl. I do not think anyone here has misunderstood the point that this is not about giving the Government uninterrupted access. It is about requiring companies to create a facility so that if they are asked, after all the suitable warrants have been gone through and all the safeguards have been fulfilled, to gain information and pass it back to the Government. I accept that that is the position and that is what is intended here. However, the Minister has still not been unequivocal on whether technical capability measures could require such a facility to be created, so that, in those circumstances and with all those safeguards in place, something could be done. It is a critical issue that we need to clarify. Otherwise, we do not know where we stand as far as the amendment is concerned. The Minister needs to provide the House and the IT industry with as much clarity as he can on this point, because the danger is that it will become the subject of continual argument.
Were the Bill to be amended by any of the amendments in this group, the Government would still have the option to say that they were minded to serve a technical capability notice on a particular company. That would then trigger a series of discussions, because it is what the Bill provides for, and a communications service provider might come back at that point and say, “Look, we literally cannot do it. We do not have the facility”. However, it is not clear whether the Government could none the less say, “Well, we understand that, but we are requiring you to do it”. The question then is: what is or what is not feasible? I happen to believe that some of the biggest communications service providers in the world have more computing expertise than any nation state. If they are told, “You are legally required to do this”, they could do it; they could find a way of making it happen. We have to be explicit as to what the Government’s expectation is. Are they saying, “No, that is not what we are requiring”, or are they saying, “Well, we might”? If they are saying, “We might”, that clarifies the position, if not helpfully. If they are saying, “No, we are not”, which is what the Minister said earlier, perhaps we could put that in the Bill—if not in the form of words proposed, then in some form of words that the Government could craft between now and next week. That would be a helpful way forward and provide absolute clarity as to the extent to which technical capability notices could be served. If I am not able to get that assurance from him—I appreciate that bits of paper have been flying backwards and forwards between him and the Box—we are in a very difficult position.
Earl Howe
I can state categorically to the noble Lord that it is absolutely not the case that the Bill would force a company to insert a back door, thereby undermining internet security. We might ask a company in certain circumstances to decrypt particular data if it was reasonably practicable and feasible for them to do so.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I understand that that is the case; that is, if they have the encryption key—we will not use “back door”; we will find another form of words—and the capability to do it, and it is not too complicated and all the relevant warrants are in place, yes, they will do that. As I understand it, most tech companies are perfectly understanding of that and willing to do it. The question is whether, if the Government were presented with a situation they were concerned about, they could say to one of the biggest communications service providers in the world, “We are asking you to build something which is not there at the moment, but we’ll provide that facility for those circumstances that might arise in the future when we’ve gone through all the relevant warrants and so on”. I am looking for an assurance from the Minister that that is not sought here, because of the dangers that we have already discussed. If he wishes, I can reiterate the question to give the Minister the opportunity to read the piece of paper that has just arrived.
Earl Howe
Of course, a technical capability notice can require a new capability to be built; that is what they are there for. If it was neither practicable nor feasible, they would not have to do it. The problem here is that it is very difficult to generalise, because any decision about these things would have to have regard to the particular circumstances of the case. As I said, there are many different models of encryption, including many different models of end-to-end encryption. Any decision has to recognise that what is reasonably practicable for one telecommunications operator may not be for another. That is why I have referred repeatedly to the need for the Government and industry to have that easy interchange which they do at the moment. It is important to emphasise that these powers already exist in law today. We should not do anything that undermines the basis for the constructive discussions that we are having.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Minister reminds us that the ideal arrangement is one of easy interchange and discussion—I understand that that carries on and works very well. He is right to say—this is why the wording of the current legislation is ambiguous and therefore a problem—that building a technical capability could mean simply putting in a piece of equipment, which means that, at the point at which the Government ask, having gone through all the voluntary processes, it is quite a straightforward matter to provide the information that the Government have legitimately and lawfully requested. That is one definition of technical capability.
What I want to know is whether “technical capability” could apply to a very secure end-to-end encryption process which no communications service provider could break but where, if they devoted thousands of person hours in California or wherever they operate from, they could develop something which might do that. If that is what the Bill is saying, we need to know.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I accept that it would not be reasonably practicable; it would also be very expensive—as I understand the Bill, the Government would have to pay for it and I am sure that technical experts in California or wherever might be very expensive. If that is the case, and if it is not possible to write it into the Bill—I would have thought it could be—it would be helpful for the Minister to write and make very clear what the Government’s intentions are in that regard and confirm that such circumstances are precluded by the Bill. If the Minister is prepared to do that, I am prepared not to press the amendment to a vote.
Earl Howe
I think I have made the Government’s position as clear as I possibly can and I am not sure what I can do to amplify the remarks I have already made. While I want to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord, I am struggling to see how a letter from me would make the position clearer.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I understand the Minister’s dilemma and I am sure that a letter from him to me would have far less force than the words appearing in Hansard. I appreciate that the courts can look at the debates in Hansard to try to interpret them. However, I ask that the Minister spends the next few days just thinking about some further modification to the Bill to make sure that this ambiguity, which I think genuinely exists—because techUK tells me so—is cleared up. On the basis that I am sure he will spend his waking hours between now and next Monday thinking about precisely these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(a) the Secretary of State considers that the variation is necessary in the interests of national security,(b) ”
(c) if the variation would impose further requirements on the person, the decision to vary the notice has been approved by a Judicial Commissioner (but see subsection (4B)).(4A) The Secretary of State may vary a technical capability notice given to a person only if—(a) the Secretary of State considers that the variation is necessary for securing that the person has the capability to provide any assistance which the person may be required to provide in relation to any relevant authorisation (within the meaning of section 229,(b) the Secretary of State considers that the conduct required by the notice as varied is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct, and(c) if the variation would impose further requirements on the person, the decision to vary the notice has been approved by a Judicial Commissioner (but see subsection (4B)).(4B) The condition in subsection (4)(c) or (as the case may be) subsection (4A)(c) does not apply in the case of a variation to which section 233(10) applies.”
“( ) Section 230 (approval of notices by Judicial Commissioners) applies in relation to a decision to vary a relevant notice (other than a decision to which section 233(10) applies) as it applies in relation to a decision to give a relevant notice, but as if—(a) the reference in section 230(2)(a) to the notice were to the variation, and(b) the reference in section 230(2)(b) to the notice were to the notice as varied.”
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 258B. The powers in the Bill are significant, as are the checks and auditing measures, but the Government accept, in providing for a review of the operation of the Act and in anticipating that a Select Committee of one or both Houses of Parliament will also want to look at the operation of the Act, that a full, independent review is both necessary and desirable. The Bill sets the initial period at five years and six months and requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report within six months of the initial period. These amendments would ensure that before any Government are held to account by the electorate at a general election, the electorate know what that Government have used the powers in the Bill for.
Amendment 258A adds to the requirement to produce a report within six months of the initial period that the report must be produced at least once during each Parliament. Amendment 258B reduces the initial period from five years and six months to two years and six months, to ensure that the actions of the present Government are clear to the electorate at the next general election, subject, obviously, to the current Government remaining in office for the full term. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
There is obviously going to be a desire to know how the Act is operating and the Bill does provide for a report from the Secretary of State, but it is, let us just say, some time after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. Assuming that the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that in responding they will set out, or give some indication, of the bodies and committees which will look at how the Act is operating, including whether it is doing so in line with the terms of the Bill. In that, I include the codes of practice and, particularly in light of the last discussion we had, the statements on the record from the Government in the two Hansards during the passage of the Bill.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I shall add some points to what my noble friend has just said. During our rather long deliberations this evening and afternoon, I went to the Library to look up the definition of “draconian”. It seems to me to be very harsh, very severe. Apparently, it goes back to ancient Greece, where Draco was the statesman who decided that every single crime would be dealt with by a death sentence. It is not a good description of the Bill and the shadow Home Secretary is unfair and, I think, mischievous in what she said, because the Bill is significant, extremely serious and very difficult. It tries to balance the importance of security in our country, which was discussed at some length today, and our liberties.
I have to say that in 30 years in Parliament I do not think I have seen a Bill which has been scrutinised quite as well as this—not just by the Joint Committee that we were on in November and December but by other committees as well and, indeed, what we have seen in this House and the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the Joint Committee, at the very end of its deliberations, knowing full well that there would be an enormous amount of scrutiny, looked at what could happen in terms of review of the Bill. The Information Commissioner, indeed, gave evidence to the Joint Committee indicating that he thought there should be a sunset clause. The then Home Secretary, who has gone on to greater things, indicated that this was not appropriate, but the committee believed that parliamentary review of the operation of what will then be an Act should take place within six months after five years. That has been incorporated into the Bill and it is the most important type of scrutiny that could happen, because that would be a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, one hopes, which could look at how the Bill has operated. The reason the Joint Committee said that was because of the hugely grave and serious nature of the Bill—not just because of the way it touches on the liberties of the subject, but protecting the subject as well.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we remain sympathetic to the desire for ongoing scrutiny of the Bill, and this is already provided for. In these circumstances we suggest that these amendments are not necessary. The Bill requires that the operation of the Act will be reviewed after five years, which is an entirely appropriate period. It is also consistent with the recommendation, as indicated, of the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. We must ensure that, before a review takes place, all the Bill’s provisions have been in effect for a sufficient period that a review is justified and can be meaningful. A review after three years, as provided for by Amendments 258A and 258B, runs the risk that this would not be the case.
We also fully expect the review after five years to be informed by a report of a Joint Committee of Parliament, in line with the recommendation made by the Joint Committee. In addition, concurrent with such a review the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament would have the opportunity to assess the more sensitive aspects of the operation of the Act. Let us remember that, in addition, the exercise of the powers provided for under the Bill will of course be subject to the ongoing oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who will be obliged to make an annual report to the Prime Minister.
The Government have listened to the previous debates in Parliament and amended the Bill to ensure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must, in particular, keep under review and report on the operation of safeguards to protect privacy. Furthermore, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s reports must be published and laid before Parliament, providing Parliament with ongoing scrutiny of the operation of the Act. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. We are still of the view that at least once every Parliament, before a general election is called, a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, should look at what the Government have been up to during their time in office so that the electorate are fully aware of how the Government have used the Bill. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(a) report on any review by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner on the compliance of—(i) officers of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters, and(ii) members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom and officials of the Ministry of Defence so far as they engage in intelligence activities,with guidance from time to time issued on the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees; and(b) ”
Baroness Hamwee
I apologise to the House both that this is a rather inelegantly presented amendment and that it comes at a rather odd point in the Bill, but it covers a matter that was brought to our attention only very recently. I put thanks on the record to the organisation Reprieve for spotting the point. It would more naturally have come with clauses we debated on Monday, but we did not want to table a manuscript amendment for that.
In 2013, the Intelligence Services Commissioner was given additional functions by the then new Section 59A of RIPA. The commissioner is required, so far as directed by the Prime Minister, to keep under review the carrying out of any aspect of the functions of the intelligence services, their heads and the Ministry of Defence and forces engaging in intelligence activities.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this amendment is unnecessary. The Government have already made it clear that the new Investigatory Powers Commissioner will bring together the existing responsibilities of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner. That includes oversight of the consolidated guidance on the detention and interviewing of detainees. In addition, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will have a bigger budget and a dedicated staff of commissioners and inspectors, as well as independent legal advisers, to ensure that the highest levels of independent scrutiny are maintained. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I chose the last words of my remarks quite carefully because it is the statutory basis of the current arrangements that is so important, which is why we raised it at this—I acknowledge—late stage. Obviously, I am glad to have these assurances. They do not answer my question but that position is now on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
““premises” includes any land, movable structure, vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft (and “set of premises” is to be read accordingly),”
““source of journalistic information” means an individual who provides material intending the recipient to use it for the purposes of journalism or knowing that it is likely to be so used,”
““statutory”, in relation to any function, means conferred by virtue of this Act or any other enactment,”
““the Technology Advisory Panel” means the panel established in accordance with section (Technology Advisory Panel)(1),”
“General definitions: “journalistic material” etc.
(1) The definitions in this section have effect for the purposes of this Act.Journalistic material(2) “Journalistic material” means material created or acquired for the purposes of journalism.(3) For the purposes of this section, where—(a) a person (“R”) receives material from another person (“S”), and(b) S intends R to use the material for the purposes of journalism,R is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.Accordingly, a communication sent by S to R containing such material is to be regarded as a communication containing journalistic material.(4) For the purposes of determining whether a communication contains material acquired for the purposes of journalism, it does not matter whether the material has been acquired for those purposes by the sender or recipient of the communication or by some other person.(5) For the purposes of this section—(a) material is not to be regarded as created or acquired for the purposes of journalism if it is created or acquired with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose, and(b) material which a person intends to be used to further such a purpose is not to be regarded as intended to be used for the purposes of journalism.Confidential journalistic material(6) “Confidential journalistic material” means—(a) in the case of material contained in a communication, journalistic material which the sender of the communication—(i) holds in confidence, or(ii) intends the recipient, or intended recipient, of the communication to hold in confidence;(b) in any other case, journalistic material which a person holds in confidence.(7) A person holds material in confidence for the purposes of this section if—(a) the person holds it subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence, or (b) the person holds it subject to a restriction on disclosure or an obligation of secrecy contained in an enactment.”
“Confidential journalistic material | Section (General definitions: “journalistic material” etc.)(6) and (7)” |
“Journalistic material | Section (General definitions: “journalistic material” etc.)(2) to (5)” |
“Premises | Section 239 (1)” |
“Statutory (in relation to any function) | Section 239(1)” |
“Technology Advisory Panel | Section 239(1)” |
“( ) section 218(2A),”
“but this is without prejudice to the continued operation of section 90(2) to (5) in relation to the notice.”
“_(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if any power to give, vary or confirm a retention notice under section 84 of this Act (excluding any power to vary a notice which has effect as such a notice by virtue of paragraph 3(1)) is brought into force without any requirement for approval by a Judicial Commissioner of the decision to give, vary or (as the case may be) confirm the notice._(2) The notice as given, varied or confirmed ceases to have effect (so far as not previously revoked) at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the requirement for approval comes into force.”
“( ) In subsection (3) “enactment” does not include any primary legislation passed or made after the end of the Session in which this Act is passed.”
“Security Service Act 1989
In section 1(5) of the Security Service Act 1989 (meaning of “prevention” and “detection”) for the words from “the provisions” to the end substitute “that Act”.”
“Intelligence Services Act 1994
In section 11(1A) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (meaning of “prevention” and “detection”) for the words from “apply” to the end substitute “apply for the purposes of this Act as it applies for the purposes of that Act, except that for the purposes of section 3 above it shall not include a reference to gathering evidence for use in any legal proceedings (within the meaning of that Act).”.”
“Police Act 1997
In section 133A of the Police Act 1997 (meaning of “prevention” and “detection”) for the words from “the provisions” to the end substitute “that Act”.”
“(1) Section 49 (investigation of electronic data protected by encryption etc: powers under which data obtained) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(b) after “communications” insert “or obtain secondary data from communications”.(3) After subsection (9) insert—“(9A) In subsection (1)(b) the reference to obtaining secondary data from communications is to be read in accordance with section 16 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.””
(a) for “23A” substitute “72 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016”, and(b) for “or 32A” substitute “or section 32A of this Act”.”
“Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
59A_ The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.59B_ In section 48 (interpretation of Part 2), in subsection (3)(c)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);(b) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert “; or(iii) Part 5, or Chapter 3 of Part 6, of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (equipment interference).”59C(1) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (persons having the appropriate permission where data obtained under warrant etc) is amended as follows._(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(b) after paragraph (b) insert “; or(c) a targeted equipment interference warrant issued under section 101 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (powers of law enforcement chiefs to issue warrants to law enforcement officers).”_(3) In sub-paragraph (5), at the end insert “or under a targeted equipment interference warrant issued under section 101 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.”_(4) In sub-paragraph (6)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (b);(b) after paragraph (c) insert “; and(d) in relation to protected information obtained under a warrant issued under section 101 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, means the person who issued the warrant or, if that person was an appropriate delegate in relation to a law enforcement chief, either that person or the law enforcement chief.”_(5) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(6A) In sub-paragraph (6)(d), the references to a law enforcement chief and to an appropriate delegate in relation to a law enforcement chief are to be read in accordance with section 101(5) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.””
“_(1) Section 64 (delegation of Commissioners’ functions) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading for “Commissioners’ functions” substitute “functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland”.(3) In subsection (1)—(a) omit “or any provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament”, and(b) for “a relevant Commissioner” substitute “the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland”.(4) Omit subsection (2).”
“(bza) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland carrying out functions under this Act”
“Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 | Section 116(3).” |
“(1A) Sections (civil liability for certain unlawful interceptions) and (interception without lawful authority: awards of costs) come into force on the day following that on which this Act is passed.”
“(6A) Any power under an Act to extend any provision of that Act by Order in Council to any of the Channel Islands may be exercised so as to extend there (with or without modifications) any amendment or repeal of that provision which is made by or under this Act.”
Fit for Work Scheme
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as this is now last business, the time limit has been extended to 90 minutes and the limit on individual speeches to 10 minutes.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for replying to this debate and to all noble Lords who will be offering their distinctive contributions. In July 2010 I led a short debate asking the Government what was being done to provide access to multidisciplinary pain management services in the NHS for those suffering chronic pain. Since then, the work of the Chronic Pain Policy Coalition and other specialist bodies has ensured progress, but it has been too slow.
I have suffered from chronic pain, caused by musculoskeletal problems, for more than 45 years. Thanks to prompt and effective support from private sector specialists in partnership with NHS doctors, I have been fortunate enough to be able to perform a wide variety of public responsibilities. Many people with chronic pain do not have the same opportunity to find effective support to keep them in work. I want all who suffer to have sufficient support to enable them to stay in or return to work after absence through sickness.
The latest available research, published by the British Medical Journal, estimates that 8 million adults are living with chronic pain serious enough to prevent them from working or participating in normal everyday life. Moreover, the research estimated that over 40% of the population suffer chronic pain at some stage in their working lives which will affect their ability to work. This evidence makes it clear that it is not only the individual who suffers but society as a whole.
Society needs the maximum number of productive years from as many people as possible. The ratio of earners and wealth generators to dependants—children, pensioners, the unemployed—should be as high as possible, because those not working depend on those who are. Fortunately, people are living longer and retirement age is becoming more elastic. Individuals can contribute to the labour force for longer, so long as they are sufficiently well, mentally and physically, to work. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s recent letter to me confirming that a Green Paper will be published before Christmas to consult on ways to ensure that government support meets the needs of people with health conditions in the workplace, and their employers.
It is shocking that the employment rate for adults with long-term conditions that affect their daily lives is only 46%, compared with 73% for the whole working-age population. The major long-term conditions include pain, musculoskeletal problems, stress and anxiety. Two major policy initiatives since 2008 have been the fit note and the Fit for Work service. Both are intended to enable sick individuals to return to work as soon as possible, with appropriate support. Early intervention is crucial to prevent a slide towards the benefits system. I know that the Minister is strongly committed to the Fit for Work service. I am giving him an opportunity to explain how it is developing and can be helped to succeed. Its effectiveness is something noble Lords will wish to probe.
Let me look briefly at the evolving history of sickness absence and its effect on society. In 2010, after 50 years of the sickness absence system, the Government replaced the sick note with a fit note. This was based on Dame Carol Black’s report, Working for a Healthier Tomorrow. This note enabled GPs to focus for the first time on a patient’s capacity to return to work, rather than their incapacity and the frequently repeated description “sick”.
In 2011 came the publication of another report, Health at Work—An Independent Review of Sickness Absence, by Dame Carol Black and Mr David Frost. In 2013, the Government accepted their main recommendations: to establish a health and work advisory assessment unit and to introduce a Fit for Work service—government funded and designed to help workers with ill health. It includes an occupational health work-focused assessment for employees who are off sick, or likely to be so, for four weeks or more and an advice service for employees, employers and GPs. It is now fully rolled out so that GPs and employers throughout Britain can refer patients or employees to it. This service has the potential to fill a massive gap in current provision.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight my belief that this early intervention scheme is needed. Its success could bring enormous benefit to society, and some statistics will illustrate the point. Overall, working-age ill health costs the economy more than £100 billion, including lost productivity, sickness absence and other costs. The latest figure available on chronic back pain, from 2000, shows that it cost the economy £10 billion; it will therefore be far higher now. We also know that 900,000 people are absent through sickness for four weeks or more each year and that more than 25% of the working population have a long-term condition or impairment, particularly in the 40 to 55 age group. We know that more people want to work past pension age, which will inevitably mean many more with long-term health conditions at work. Chairing recently two Westminster Employment Forum seminars on this subject, my attention has also been drawn to something called presenteeism, where a large number of employees are not working to full capacity due to their lack of health and well-being.
All this means that society suffers. Employers face a loss of productivity; the nation spends considerable sums of taxpayers’ money; and last but most important, the quality of life of many individuals is seriously undermined. Being out of work jeopardises any individual’s self-esteem and morale. So I ask the Minister: what is working well, and how can the service made more effective?
A number of questions arise. GPs and other health professionals seem to lack awareness of this service, so is it publicised enough? Do GPs realise that their workload will be reduced by referring more patients to the occupational health service? Is there enough face-to-face contact for employees, in addition to the initial telephone advisory service? Do employees know that they can get help after four weeks off work by asking their GP or employer for a referral?
There are some successful examples of large companies helping affected employees. BT has helped some 30,000 people in the last eight years. I have heard that Anglian Water has achieved a return of £3 for every £1 spent in helping an employee and the Royal Mail a return of £5 for every £1, cutting absence by 25% over three years. But the Fit for Work service was intended to make occupational health advice available nationwide. This is difficult when, as I am told, there are only some 4,000 occupational health professionals, compared to more than 45,000 GPs and physiotherapists. What number of specialists are needed to provide a nationwide Fit for Work service? It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about progress on these matters, especially how the service is currently supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, which are less likely to be able to employ their own health specialists.
A major question arises: how well equipped is the NHS to give adequate professional support for those with long-term illnesses? I can speak only about chronic pain and musculoskeletal issues, while other noble Lords can no doubt speak of other areas. Patients with chronic pain need to learn how to manage their pain and to know to what medical support they can turn—which may include physiotherapists, osteopaths, acupuncturists, psychologists and so on. A wide range of things can be done to keep us active and positive but many areas have inadequate or no multidisciplinary support for chronic pain. There is still a long way to go.
However, given an effective Fit for Work scheme, most suffering employees can be helped to stay in or return to work. Everyone stands to benefit: the individual, the employer and the nation. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this scheme. Would he be prepared for me to bring a small team from the Chronic Pain Policy Coalition and other interested Peers to discuss this scheme in more detail with him and, if possible, with Department of Health officials? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Fink (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing the important topic of helping and enabling those with long-term health problems to return to or stay in work. I know that he identified chronic pain as a major category of health-related issues but those of us who have looked at some of the statistics know that mental health problems, as well as untreated drug and alcohol addictions, are also major causes of long-term health problems and unemployment. I believe that any effective initiatives that help society to deal with these problems are most laudable and I too congratulate the Minister on introducing these measures.
Traditionally, the first or only point of call for someone with such a health problem was the family GP. I know from direct experience how overworked our GP service is and while it usually does a good job in identifying and often in treating common health problems, particularly acute ones, its ability to help manage long-term chronic ones, particularly in the difficult areas of mental health, is rather more sorely tested—especially as a typical appointment with a doctor lasts less than 10 minutes.
As an employer, I also know how difficult it is to deal with employees who have chronic health problems that subsequently lead to extended time off work. Sadly, while many employers show compassion, some—particularly small businesses which have limited staff resources and important deadlines to work to—may focus more on the needs of the business than their employee’s needs. Indeed, many small companies will not even have personnel departments to help them deal with the balance between showing the right compassion to the employee, respecting all of that employee’s legal rights and the difficult job of meeting the business’s needs.
As I understand it, while it is not a direct replacement of the traditional sick or fit note the Fit for Work initiative provides an integrated service, helping to improve health outcomes as well as employment outcomes by supporting both employees and employers. Given how much I believe that work is a great therapy that generates a sense of self-esteem, such esteem and purpose can help to offset many health problems such as depression. It can even take people’s minds off pain. Indeed, long-term unemployment and depression can cause a vicious cycle, with negative effects on society in general and potentially devastating effects on the individual and his or her family. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister describe the progress that the scheme has achieved.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has done us all a service by highlighting this little-known scheme which was launched two years ago. The aim of the scheme is admirable and should help both the employee by facilitating a return to work and the employee’s GP by preventing them having to write out yet more sick notes. At this point, I shall say how nice it is to have a different cast of characters speaking about DWP matters. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that it is very good when more people engage with DWP matters.
One only has to look at press comment about the scheme to see where some of the problems lie. When it was introduced, press headlines made it sound like a mandatory scheme, which it is not, to force sick employees back to work. I fear that a lot of damage has been done within the past decade by press comment ramping up the “shirkers and scroungers” mentality, thus tending to make those quite legitimately on sick benefits feel like frauds. The very title of this scheme—Fit for Work—sounds so like yet another assessment while a person is off sick that it is little wonder that some people may be getting the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps the scheme should be renamed and relaunched. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that more positive and better publicity is certainly needed, not least because the number of referrals is well below what was expected.
The first problem is that the scheme is not known about nearly enough by employers and employees. The second problem is whether four weeks is too long an absence before a business can request help from the scheme. I gather that GPs can refer both earlier and later. Four weeks might be too long for employers, considering that the scheme is not mandatory. Perhaps there could be some flexibility.
Looking at the scheme itself, I understand it is to complement existing occupational health provision, where it exists, but we know that it exists only in large firms. We have heard about some of them. It will not exist in small businesses, where the bulk of employment lies. Small businesses are unlikely to know about the scheme. For that reason, I hope it will become much better known.
If the scheme is taken up, a telephone assessment will be undertaken by an occupational therapist—an OT—in the first instance who will prepare a return-to-work plan. Having taken advice from some OTs working in central London hospitals who have experience of treating those with long-term neuro or neuromuscular problems, I shall share their comments, which seem to me to be sensible and practical. The first thing they say is that OTs with a nursing or medical background often give general advice on what a person can or cannot do without giving more creative advice about how a person might adapt their usual way of going about things. In other words, a more specialised OT might know from experience how to find a way around a difficulty. Perhaps specialised advice should be sought by some of the more general OTs.
My advisers also wonder what medical notes the Fit for Work scheme advisers have access to. If the answer is that they do not have access to such notes, then is an employee with complex needs going to be well served? Another problem is the telephone assessment. A lot of people do not like talking about confidential medical matters on the telephone. I know that face-to-face assessments are possible for those with complex conditions, but the travelling time to these assessments might be as much as 90 minutes. I wonder whether that will be having an impact on the take-up of this scheme and whether home visits are possible.
Then there is the problem of disclosure. A lot of employees, especially those with long-term conditions, will be very cautious about talking with a stranger about medical matters that might be shared with an employer. This last point is also one which is likely to apply to those with a mental health problem. The workplace mental health support service run by Remploy, which was set up to help those in work with a range of mild to moderate mental health problems, is slowly becoming more accessible and better known, and is, of course, part of access to work. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how this service fits into the scheme.
That brings me to the difficult question of the quality of assessors. My OT advisers are much too polite to make trenchant comments, but even they doubt whether there are enough well-trained, experienced OTs throughout the country to ensure enough consistency in assessments and advice. Are we spreading the available pool of OTs too thinly? Are more being trained for these and all the other assessments? If these problems I have mentioned could all be addressed, then I am sure the scheme would be much more successful.
As I have a minute more, I shall quickly make a point about chronic pain. It is a huge problem for a lot of people. It is reported to affect around 8 million adults. It is also reported that chronic back pain alone costs the country about £10 billion per annum. There is anecdotal evidence that the right degree of physical exercise can be beneficial. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, the Minister and I have talked before about the benefits of hydrotherapy for people with all kinds of severe musculoskeletal problems. Sadly, there is a terrible lack of hydrotherapy provision round the country, and hospital pools are closing for lack of money to maintain and staff them adequately. Considering that warm water exercise is beneficial for so many conditions, I wish the Government would give it their backing. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing this debate with his characteristic mastery of the territory, context and issues.
I shall look at the progress of the Fit for Work scheme. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, hinted, there has been a lot of negativity. I remember that when it was first introduced the press called it a test about whether people were fit for work. There have been pilots and a lot of chunter about the slow development of the rollout. We need to remember that it is a huge shift for the medical professional, employers and employees, and we need to encourage the Government to look carefully at the rollout to see what can be learned as it unfolds. As the noble Lord, Lord Fink, mentioned, there may be issues about how small businesses can access this opportunity.
I want to endorse the important potential of the scheme. Many of us know that when people fall out of work—and the problem is doubled, in a way, with ill-health factors—there are often issues with isolation, depression and not being in the social environment from which we human beings gather our identity and energy. When they feel excluded, people need to recognise that there is the possibility of inclusion in the future. That is why this scheme is so important and significant.
To try to draw that out, I shall offer an illustration from my work as a priest. I work with lots of individuals, including people with terrible, chronic, long-term pain and illness, and I also work in communities. I shall offer an analogy. We spend a lot of money in communities over many years and do not see many results. We pour it into outer estates, inner cities and needy groups, and 10 years later they want another round of grants and we wonder what has been achieved.
Noble Lords will know that there has been a recent move towards what is called “Asset Based Community Development”. That means that if you try to develop a community by putting in things and adding value, you will discover what assets are already there in the people’s gifts and in their interests, so that the people who live in a place or in a project own what is offered and imbibe it. It then becomes part of them and the whole thing involves people standing on their own feet and participating in the growth and development of their community.
The Fit for Work scheme could learn something from this, because there is a danger as the scheme unrolls—as the critics rightly say, it could be improved here and there—that we will develop an ever more sophisticated bureaucracy: we will tick that box, offer that service and make this available. But the whole point is to allow individuals who are suffering, and feeling isolated and possibly depressed, to own the possibility, with the scheme, of having their gifts and contribution recognised and to be given a platform, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said so eloquently, to participate in the world of work, in society and in business.
It would be very interesting if the Minister would reflect on this fact. As we learn from the pilots and the scheme is rolled out slowly and carefully, how can we enable the scheme, through the training of medical people and employers, to have the flexibility and the sensitivity to recognise that each person is an asset, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said? We should not just make them go through a scheme but enable them to feel, “I can participate in ways that suit my chronic pain”—or back injury or whatever it is—“and still make a contribution and still be included”.
It is all about pace and timing. The danger of any scheme is that it gets its own bureaucracy and it rolls on. That is why community development so often does not work. But if you can adjust the pace and the timing to allow creative participation from the individual concerned, the investment will be much more fruitful, there will be a much higher chance that people will get back into work in a strong way, and the scheme will flourish.
That is a massive ask of the Government and of those running the scheme: I recognise that. But I would invite the Minister to share his reflections on what we can learn from that asset-based approach, and on how the Government can ensure that those who administer the scheme can be as highly trained as possible to have that sensitivity and flexibility to allow the individual to be involved in the process and to be an asset in their own precious way so that they have dignity at work and a long-term future in it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luce, on initiating this debate and I echo his call and that of other noble Lords for the benefits of the Fit for Work scheme to become more widely known. It really is mad that this great network of provision has been set up at great expense but that so many of the people who should know about it, especially GPs, do not make use of it.
I was so glad that my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester and the noble Lord, Lord Fink, both mentioned people with mental health problems. As the noble Lord said, they are often the primary cause of people being away from work for a long period, but I am sure we all know that many people who have chronic pain or another serious condition also have mental health problems that need to be addressed. I ask the Minister: what training do the occupational health advisers in the scheme have in identifying the mental health aspects of a person’s absence from work and in signposting those people towards treatment that will help them overcome it?
I will concentrate my brief remarks on the issue of chronic pain. As we have heard, 8 million adults report chronic pain that is moderate to severely disabling, such that it prevents them working or living a normal life day to day. But many more people live with lesser levels of chronic pain. The incidence is, understandably, much higher in the older age groups. However, few of those people are likely to be in work and are therefore not affected by the Fit for Work programme that we are debating. However, it often prevents them volunteering in the way that they would like—and we all know how important older people are in that capacity. Most charities would fall apart without them.
In the working-age group, one of the conditions that produces chronic pain is fibromyalgia. I know something about this because a member of my family suffers from it. It is incurable and variable. She had such a level of pain and stiffness as to make it impossible for her to carry on with a job in the public service that she very much enjoyed. Eventually she was forced to take early retirement, which penalised her financially until she reached pensionable age. I know that her employer was very sorry to lose her, and I wonder whether she might have been able to carry on if the Fit for Work programme had been available at the time.
However, the rules of Fit for Work, as I understand them, are such that you are not eligible unless you have been, or are likely to be, absent from work for four weeks. I happen to know that my relative, although she suffered a lot of pain at work, did not have long periods of absence. But in the end, she found it just too difficult and retired early. I suspect that many people like her soldier on with a stiff upper lip, taking stronger and stronger painkillers, perhaps performing well below their capacity and not enjoying life at all. In many cases the employer, too, will suffer from their reduced productivity. I wonder whether more people could be helped if the scope of the programme were expanded to help people stay in work, rather than just to return to work from sick leave. Back pain is so common that I would be very surprised if there were not hundreds of thousands of people working below their full capacity because of it.
My family member worked in the public service and did not have an occupational health department to turn to. The Fit for Work programme fills that gap and is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses that often do not have the resources that are available to big corporates. But the point must be made that public service workers often do not have that, either, because they are scattered in smaller units around the country.
Occupational health professionals can often identify the obstacles that prevent a person returning to work or working at full capacity, and can avert the need for them to leave their job. Indeed, I suspect that these professionals would have a lot more clout when negotiating with employers about reasonable adjustments that could be made than the employee herself or himself. It would seem sensible and desirable that, just as reasonable adjustments must be made for workers with a disability, employers should also be prepared to make reasonable adjustments to help people with chronic pain retain their job and help the employer retain an experienced worker.
I am afraid my remarks have gone somewhat wider than the Fit for Work programme, but I think what I am calling for would also achieve some of the Government’s objectives in setting up the scheme—for example, helping workers, improving productivity and increasing the tax take. I wonder therefore whether the Minister can tell me what action the Government are taking to widen the net and provide more help to a broader group of workers who are living with chronic pain but who keep calm and carry on in the good old British fashion.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an informed but brief debate and we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, who rightly prompted us to seek an update on the Fit for Work scheme, which has now been under way for more than a year. The particular focus of the noble Lord—and of others—was on chronic pain, for the reasons he outlined. The noble Lord also, in common with a number of other contributors, made the point forcefully that the service is as yet not well known.
The service has a direct link to the work of Dame Carol Black, and in particular to the analysis that she undertook, together with David Frost, that looked at sickness absence in the UK. Its focus on the period when people first became vulnerable to disconnection from the labour market was an important development and a component of emerging strands of policy that spanned Governments. Introduction of the service followed a series of pilots between April and June 2010 which looked at different ways of supporting employees in ill health to stay in or return to work after a period of sickness absence. These pilots grew out of Dame Carol’s review of the health of Britain’s working-age population, which showed the staggering annual economic cost of ill health in working days lost and worklessness to be over £100 billion.
Over recent years, the understanding of the relationship between work and health has changed and indeed improved. We have moved away from the notion that it is always in the best interests of someone with a health condition to be absent from the workplace. Being in work is good for health, and worklessness leads to poorer health—including mental health, a point noted by the noble Lord, Lord Fink. Hence the need to promote the benefits of work to health for individuals, employers and healthcare professionals, a proposition most strongly advanced by Waddell and Burton.
However, there is a need to go further. Bringing the expertise of health professionals directly to bear in support of individuals who are off sick or in danger of being so is something which we support. This is what the Fit for Work service is seeking to do. It is an early intervention, involving a referral after four weeks of sickness—although the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made an interesting point about the relevance of that—for an assessment from a GP or, if not, potentially from an employer. That assessment should lead to a return to work plan. So far, so good, but we need to take stock to see how it is all working out in practice. I have some questions, some of which overlap those presented by other noble Lords. In England the service is contracted to Health Management Ltd. Can the Minister say something about the qualifications of the individuals allowed to deliver these services? What range of qualifications does this cover and what review of quality is being undertaken?
It is understood that the contract is for five years, at an initial value of something like £132 million, although this may have been increased. Can the Minister say how many Fit for Work interventions it is expected this would cover, and can we have an update on how many referrals have been made to date? Can the Minister say what level of referrals was anticipated when the contract was entered into?
Press comment, as others have noted, has suggested there is some confusion about the interpretation over the referral guidelines, at least so far as GPs are concerned. Is the Minister aware of this and can he say what the problem is? A DWP study apparently suggested GPs are likely to refer some 36% of their eligible case load to the service, but referral rates in practice vary. Why is this? The process involves at least the first assessment being undertaken by phone rather than face to face, and the nature of the assessment is determined by the occupational health professional. How many assessments are undertaken face to face and how many by phone? It is understood that a re-referral cannot be made within 12 months of a previous one where a return to work plan has been agreed. What is the position where an assessment is under way? Is it an iterative process, with potentially several telephone calls and meetings until a return to work plan is agreed? What is the experience of eligible employees who refuse consent for a referral? What information does the service hold on the outcome of return to work plans, in particular on whether they lead to long-term, sustainable, positive outcomes? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby offered an interesting parallel with asset-based community development and the potential that offers the Fit for Work service.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Luce, specifically refers to long-term, chronic pain, but of course the service is also available to those with a mental health condition. Can the Minister give us an update on the levels of referral for such individuals? Are such assessments always undertaken on a face-to-face basis, at least initially? It has also been reported that the Fit for Work service is less well used by SMEs, a point that a number of noble Lords made. Is this the Government’s understanding, and what amendments might be made to the service to address that?
The Fit for Work service notwithstanding, major challenges exist. As the Work Foundation report due to launch next week sets out, managing a long-term health condition while also working is a challenge. People who experience multiple long-term health conditions have poorer outcomes from a range of employment-related conditions, which is perhaps not surprising. The Work Foundation reports that one in three current employees has at least one long-term health condition and that 42% report that their health affects their work. This, together with the stigma of discrimination associated with poor health, is argued to be a major contributor to the gap in employment outcomes.
We know that mental illness has a substantial and highly detrimental impact on employment outcomes when it occurs on its own, but an even greater impact when it occurs alongside a physical health condition. Nevertheless, it seems clear that for many people with multiple, long-term health conditions, work is a positive part of their lives. The question is what the Fit for Work service contributes to helping them remain in work. More needs to be done, as noble Lords have said, to enhance awareness of what it can do.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing this debate. I have spent a lot of time trying to get the service in, and it is absolutely vital that we have this kind of support for people, to stop the inflow at a time you can do it. That is what this service is designed to do. I also acknowledge the noble Lord’s concerns about employees who are facing long-term sickness absence. We debated it quite some time ago now, I think when the independent review of sickness absence report, led by Dame Carol Black, came out. I hope I will be able to answer the bulk of the many questions that noble Lords have asked me.
I start by giving a picture of how the workforce in Great Britain has been affected by long-term sickness absence, a set of figures that has been touched on. In 2015, 139 million days were lost to sickness absence, and the independent review in 2011 on this came out with a total cost figure of £9 billion in sick pay and associated costs, with the whole cost to the economy running at £15 billion. Many noble Lords here today will remember that a significant proportion of sickness absences result from musculoskeletal conditions such as back or knee pain. The other big factor is mental health conditions, such as stress, depression and anxiety. Clearly, the fact that we have an ageing workforce adds to the necessity of having really good services in place to help those affected by health conditions to go back to work or to remain in work. As people are now living longer and healthier lives, it is vital that occupational health services are accessible for such workers so that they can continue to live at a better, healthier standard. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked me how many occupational health practitioners we really need in this country. That is a difficult question for me to answer. I think the answer is probably more than we have, but I cannot help her much more than that.
I do not want everyone to think that we focus only on services to help older workers to stay in work; age and health are not necessarily related. Many businesses already understand the benefits of providing occupational health support to employees but, as several noble Lords have pointed out today, one of the major issues is with the SMEs that do not have access to such support or have very limited access to it. That was one of the key findings from Dame Carol Black in her review, where she pointed out that it was the lack of access here that was preventing employees from returning to work. That led us to the establishment of the Fit for Work service.
As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out, we started with a gradual rollout in December 2014. We have now rolled out nationwide, and we offer occupational health assessments for those suffering from long-term sickness absence. We also provide an advice service for employers, GPs and employees that is free to use for all. That means that whenever an employee is absent from work due to illness for four weeks or more, they can be referred to Fit for Work by either their GP or their employer. It is interesting that the figures for employers have been moving ahead of those for GPs. Those who are referred are allocated their own experienced case manager who will conduct an assessment with them that will take into account all the issues—health, work and social issues—that may be preventing the member of staff from returning to work. The employee will receive a return to work plan detailing the steps that he or she, their employer or their GP can take to help them to return to work sooner. Then, provided that the employee consents, the plan is also sent directly to their employer or GP.
I turn to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the qualifications of the healthcare professionals. They are professionals who have an occupational health qualification or occupational health experience or who are able to demonstrate the experience and skills appropriate to working in an occupational health context. Health professionals must be registered with the relevant regulatory and/or professional body on the appropriate parts of its registers. Fit for Work has an accredited specialist in occupational medicine providing clinical supervision of the service, and provides appropriate supervision from more experienced professionals from whom they can seek advice.
Both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked who the health professionals are. They come from a wide range of backgrounds. They will signpost to other services if appropriate. I hope they are creative; they can refer on to hydrotherapy, for example, and the noble Baroness knows that I am a believer in much colder water than she is.
Employees and employers can contact the advice service on any work and health matter, and that includes people who are still in work. Someone—I have forgotten who but I think it may have been the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—talked about the stiff upper lip. The service is available for those with a stiff upper lip who are struggling at work. They do not have to be off work in order to take that advice.
The referrals are an iterative process, as said by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. An initial assessment will be done and an initial return to work plan issued. Further assessments will take place if required—for example, if an individual does not return to work as expected—and the service will provide support for up to three months if required.
I can give some numbers for the scheme. From the figures from March 2015 until last month, we are just shy of 10,000; some 9,000-odd people have gone through. For commercial reasons I cannot disclose our expectation but I will not disguise that that is a lower level than we had hoped for at this stage, and clearly we are concerned to do something about that. One thing we will do is reflect some of that in the Green Paper that is due between “shortly” and “soon”—we have had many debates about what those two words actually mean.
Some noble Lords mentioned some of the parallel services to Fit for Work. Noble Lords will remember that we introduced a tax exemption of up to £500 a year per employee for medical treatments recommended by Fit for Work with an employer-arranged occupational health service, so that is designed to act as an extra incentive for employers to make use of Fit for Work.
The Access to Work scheme provides practical and financial support with the additional costs faced by individuals whose health or disability affects the way they do their job. The amount of help that an individual may receive from Access to Work will depend on their individual need and personal circumstances, but the figure is now up to a maximum of £41,400 a year of support. The Access to Work programme is delivered by Jobcentre Plus. The awards are usually made for a period of three years and are reviewed annually. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I can say that Fit for Work will signpost to Access to Work as necessary. This will be recorded on the return to work plan for both the employee and their employer.
We know there is a consensus here. I am always delighted when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I agree on some of these matters; that was not always the case. This Government are committed to helping more people with mental health conditions to find and retain work, as well as testing how to improve both the well-being and the employment prospects of claimants with mental health conditions. There is investment of an extra £1.25 billion in mental health support and we have pledged over £40 million over the next three years on a range of voluntary pilots to test how best to support people with mental health conditions to gain and retain employment.
The real issue here is that we often simply do not know what works. This money is really important to find some of those answers. I assure noble Lords that no one in the world knows them, so it is very important that we find out how to do it.
Government cannot do this on our own: we need employers and healthcare professionals. We believe that for Fit for Work to be more successful, for more people to go through it, there needs to be a change in culture among GPs and employers, particularly SMEs. There have been marketing campaigns to the medical community and to employers’ representative bodies. Through them, the providers of Fit for Work have been working to increase awareness of the service across Great Britain but clearly—this is a point made by several noble Lords—we have a deal more work to do to get the word out.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about evaluation. An evaluation strategy is in place for Fit for Work. It is being undertaken by an independent research organisation on behalf of the work and health unit. It will include feedback from employee users, GPs and employers. The initial satisfaction data we have received from independent performance monitoring is that the service has been welcomed by GPs, employers and employees.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked: should we rename and relaunch? We are looking at this whole area—should we expand, what is its role?—in the Green Paper, so we will be able to return to that topic. On the key question that she asked about sharing information, most people are relaxed about sharing information with their GP or employer. About 30% of people do not want to share the information.
The noble Lord, Lord Luce, asked whether the telephone is the right method. It is speedy, cost-effective and works in many cases. In some cases, it is not appropriate, and we will conduct face-to-face assessments when necessary.
My noble friend asked how well-equipped the NHS is to give support. NHS England commissions specialised care for patients whose pain cannot be successfully controlled or is particularly complex to manage. NICE has published several clinical guidelines and produced a range of best practice guidance on pain management for specialised drugs and treatment, as well as specific conditions, including chronic pain.
Too many individuals are still prevented from participating in the labour market by health issues. We have established the cross-government work and health unit jointly with the Department of Health. That is designed to lead the drive to improve work and health outcomes for people by improving integration across the healthcare and employment services. That combination is the driving factor behind Fit for Work.
We know that many larger companies see the benefit of supporting their workforces through occupational health—around 80% of large companies do that—but that only one in 10 small companies do so. That is where the Fit for Work service is designed to fill the hole. As I said, we will be exploring this area further in the Green Paper.
Let me conclude by again expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Luce. This is a key programme for us. It has not gone as rapidly as I hoped. I hope that, if we can get it up successfully and get the message out better, the benefits will be compelling: for employers, to reduce sick pay and increase productivity; for the state, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, through reduced long-term worklessness; but, most importantly, for the people involved, it just makes their lives more meaningful.
We are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that Fit for Work plays as full a part as possible in what is an extraordinarily important objective of helping people stay in work.