House of Commons
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Lots of good causes across Scotland have put bids in to the Treasury for the next round of allocations from the LIBOR fund, but I am afraid we will need to be patient and wait for the Chancellor’s autumn statement this afternoon to hear which have been successful.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The Secretary of State knows that there is no greater cause in my constituency than Holmwood House, a fine piece of Alexander “Greek” Thomson’s architecture. Next year is the bicentenary of his birth, and the Secretary of State knows how keen I am, and the Alexander Thomson Society is, to promote that, both around the UK and internationally. Will he assure me that the full weight of his office is behind making that happen?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman is to be commended for his efforts in promoting the bicentenary of Alexander “Greek” Thomson, who is perhaps an underappreciated icon of Scottish architecture. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—especially after my own visit to Holmwood House and meeting the Alexander Thomson Society—that the UK Government will do all we can to support and promote that bicentenary.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that LIBOR money could be used to help fund opencast coal restoration in Scotland. Has the Secretary of State had any similar discussions with the Chancellor, or has he done nothing about the opencast pledge in the 2015 Green Book?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman knows that I—and, indeed, the UK Government—have done a great deal to work with East Ayrshire Council to ensure that opencast restoration could proceed in that area following the collapse of various companies involved in opencast mining. We continue that dialogue with both the Scottish Government and East Ayrshire Council to try bring the matter to a satisfactory resolution.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was a bit tardy in standing, but we will hear the fellow anyway.
John Stevenson
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Scotland has some wonderful tourist attractions, many of which are in the border region and Cumbria. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are real opportunities to promote tourism in the border areas, but that that will involve close co-operation between councils on both sides of the border, and is not just about finance?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend knows that I am very keen to promote cross-border working between Cumbria County Council, his own local authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council. That is why I am a very big supporter of the so-called borderlands initiative to bring those councils together to try to secure economic development for the area, in which tourism would play a very important part.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
We have made significant progress in transferring powers in the Scotland Act 2016 to the Scottish Parliament. A large number of provisions of the Act are already in force and we are continuing to work with the Scottish Government on the smooth transition of remaining powers.
Mr Jackson
The Scottish National party Government have failed to introduce a single piece of legislation in the past six months; the First Minister prefers grandstanding across Europe to block Brexit. Is it not time she used the powers devolved to her under the Act to start governing, rather than engaging in pointless photo opportunities?
David Mundell
I can update my hon. Friend. The Scottish Government have now brought forward one piece of legislation since the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. He may be interested to know that this Government currently have 19 pieces of proposed legislation before this Parliament. Of course I agree with him, and I think the majority of people in Scotland want the First Minister and the Scottish Government to get on with their day job of running Scotland and seeing to the devolved responsibilities, rather than constantly talking about independence.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Scottish Government have announced that the new powers over benefits will be used to end the misery being meted out to disabled Scots by the UK Government. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to reduce the need for assessments for personal independence payments and disability living allowance, in particular for those with long-term illness. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to welcome that and urge his UK Cabinet colleagues to follow suit?
David Mundell
What I will welcome when I see it is some detail behind those fine words. We have heard lots and lots of fine words on welfare, but to date we have absolutely no detail as to what the Scottish Government plan to do.
Angus Robertson
I suppose we should view it as progress that the Secretary of State believes they are fine words, and perhaps he will follow the Scottish Government’s initiative, but it is fair to say that the majority of welfare and economic powers are not being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has no plans to devolve powers to deal with Scottish legal partnerships, and the risks they pose in the fight against global money-laundering and organised crime? I have raised this matter with the Prime Minister and spoken to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he now tell the House what he and the UK Government will actually do about it?
David Mundell
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the settlement in the Scotland Act 2016 was the outcome of the Smith Commission. The Scottish legal partnerships issue was not a part of that arrangement and will not be devolved, but I take it extremely seriously. I commend him for the way in which he has highlighted it in this House and elsewhere, and I commend The Herald for the way in which it has highlighted the issue. Colleagues in the UK Government are looking at how we can best take the situation forward to end the abuses, which are evident.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I was concerned to read in The Sunday Times that the Scottish Government are delaying the introduction of the devolved welfare powers. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether that is the case?
David Mundell
All Members have access to the minutes of the last meeting of the joint welfare group between myself and Scottish Government Ministers. Those minutes confirm that the introduction of the welfare powers in Scotland is indeed being delayed, potentially until 2020.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State consider the transfer of power on visas to the Scottish Government? In the Outer Hebrides, fishing boats are currently tied up because the UK Government will not enable non-EEA fishermen to come in and work on them. People are welcome and are required, but they are blocked from economic activity by the UK Government. This threatens jobs and industries in the Outer Hebrides. Will he act and do something about it, or will he do nothing as usual?
David Mundell
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which others have also expressed. There are specific rules on who can work on fishing boats, but immigration remains a reserved issue and the responsibility of the Home Office.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow Hurricane Angus. Mr Speaker, may I thank you for your generous indulgence in allowing me to appear at the Dispatch Box in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who is simply unable to be with us today? I have been immersing myself in Scottish legislation—and Irn-Bru—over the past week.
Many of us on the Labour Benches would give our eye teeth to have the powers contained in the Scotland Act 2016. Does the Secretary of State feel that the apparent reluctance of the Scottish Government to take more advantage of them indicates a surfeit of modesty, or, possibly, a lack of ambition?
David Mundell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box at Scottish questions on behalf of the Labour party. The one question I have is, “Who next?” because we have had a selection of individuals. I say to the hon. Gentleman that these are very significant powers over tax and welfare. The autumn statement in this House is a very important event, but on 15 December we will see the Scottish Budget. For the first time, the Scottish Government will be able to raise income tax at their will in the Scottish Budget. That is a very significant moment in terms of taking responsibility and accountability.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
The Government will continue to provide an environment where small and medium-sized enterprises everywhere can thrive. That means cutting red tape, keeping taxes low, tackling late payment and improving access to finance. We are committed to ensuring the whole of the UK is a great place to start and grow a business.
Paul Blomfield
Figures produced by the Scottish Government show that SMEs constitute 99% of all private sector enterprise and more than 50% of employment in Scotland. If the economy suffers any form of setback—and the Chancellor is predicting one—these enterprises will be hardest hit. Given their importance, what is the Minister doing to reduce uncertainty and to support their growth?
Margot James
The UK economy is strong in spite of uncertainty. Scottish SMEs currently benefit from nearly £400 million of investment from the British Business Bank and Innovate UK aimed at helping them to grow and capitalise on new technologies and new export markets.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Margot James
I quite agree with my hon. Friend. SMEs in Scotland trade four times as much within the single market of the United Kingdom as with the EU. Indeed, they trade more with markets in the rest of the world than across the entire EU.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
One of the key things that the Scottish and UK Governments could do to take away uncertainty for SMEs and businesses across Scotland is to take a second independence referendum off the table. Something else the Government could do—I hope we will hear this in the autumn statement—is conclude the Edinburgh city deal. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor to make sure we hear that in the next few minutes?
Margot James
I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for that city deal, but we will have to wait another hour for more detail, and I could not agree more that the uncertainty in Scotland is coming far more from talk of another referendum than from the outcome of the EU referendum.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Yesterday it was announced that over 500 jobs in the Tannochside area of my constituency were under threat, as Ageas Kwik Fit Insurance has announced plans to axe its entire Scottish operation. If these plans proceed, it will be a devastating blow to the local community just before Christmas. What assistance can the Secretary of State and his Government provide for these constituents and families at this difficult time?
Margot James
Obviously this will be a very difficult time for the Kwik Fit workforce and their families, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I understand that Kwik Fit is consulting on closure by the end of next March, and I hope that the affected workers will quickly be able to move into alternative employment. The UK Government will assist with support from the Jobcentre Plus rapid reaction service, working also with North Lanarkshire Council, to help all those being made redundant.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Speaker
The answer should relate specifically to SMEs, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman intended to mention.
Margot James
The unemployment rate in Scotland is lower than that in the rest of the UK, and SMEs in Scotland, as my hon. Friend points out, benefit from this trend as much as any other businesses in Scotland.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On 12 October, in response to a question about the deal struck with Nissan, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and said—you can probably quote it verbatim, Mr Speaker—that
“whatever support is put in place for businesses in the north of England will apply to businesses in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 287.]
Is the Secretary of State or the Minister willing to confirm that this is still the case? If so, will they provide us with more detail of the support? SMEs need to know.
Margot James
My right hon. Friend was exactly right in what he said about the Nissan deal. The same level of support will indeed be available to Scottish businesses, but, as for the detail, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait another hour for the autumn statement.
Stephen Pound
I am very grateful to the Minister, especially for my promotion to the Privy Council. I welcome her commitment, which I am sure will reassure SMEs and businesses of all sizes, but there must have been an analysis of the costs. What assessment has been made of the cost of this support?
Margot James
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making an assessment of the costs and the benefits of all such deals on an ongoing basis.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Secretary of State for Scotland has had numerous discussions with me about the intra-UK budget allocations under the common agricultural policy. I have also had discussions on this issue with the National Farmers Union Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament and the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity.
Steven Paterson
The convergence uplift is worth €230 million, and the UK Government are withholding that money, which should be supporting Scotland’s rural economy. Scotland’s farmers deserve fairness. When will Scotland’s man in Cabinet, by which I mean the Secretary of State for Scotland, do something about this, or will he continue to do nothing?
George Eustice
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we will provide an update on the review of CAP allocations before the end of this year. I add that the context has changed fundamentally, following the decision to leave the EU. Some argue that the area-based payments as required under the CAP have never suited Scotland very well. Indeed, NFU Scotland has previously raised concerns about the level of payments going to very large landowners, arguing that we should instead direct support to farmers and producers through livestock payments. We now have an opportunity to look at all of these issues, and I shall work closely on that with NFU Scotland and its talented team of officials.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
What we really seek in Scottish questions is the confirmation that the Secretary of State for Scotland backs Scottish farmers and will get this promised money delivered. It is fantastic that we have the Minister with responsibility for farming here, but all we have heard so far is no detail and “just warm words”, to quote the Secretary of State. Can we have the detail put in place and give Scottish farmers what they deserve?
George Eustice
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As I made clear, the Secretary of State for Scotland discusses this issue with me regularly. I am passionate about Scotland, and I have discussed this issue with NFU Scotland from January onwards. We are working on joint proposals and joint agreements as regards post-Brexit agricultural policy.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
Since the referendum, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held 60 meetings with well over 100 Scottish organisations to hear their views. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has met businesses in Aberdeen, while the Minister for Trade has met business leaders in Edinburgh.
Victoria Atkins
Will my hon. Friend encourage Scottish businesses to seize the opportunities of our new relationship with Europe and the wider world, including, of course, my own constituency of Louth and Horncastle? Will she urge the Scottish Government to support their businesses, stop moaning about referendums and get on with governing?
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give that encouragement. The message that the UK Government have heard loud and clear is that businesses in Scotland want stability and not another divisive referendum. Talk of independence is disruptive. What people want now is the economic stability that can be provided only by Scotland remaining in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I have No. 12, Mr Speaker.
Stuart C. McDonald
Margot James
There was no U-turn whatever on that. The UK Government will seek the best possible deal for all parts of the United Kingdom. That will include limits on free movement and the best possible access to, and trade within, the single market for British companies.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The creative industries in Scotland are one of the most successful areas of Scottish business, but there is real concern about the regulatory regime that Ofcom presides over and about what the future relationship with the European Union will look like. What discussions has the Minister had concerning that regulatory regime?
Margot James
My ministerial colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have had discussions, and I will ask one of them to notify the hon. Gentleman of their outcome.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In the Northern Isles some of our most important exporting businesses are in the very successful food and drink sector, but representatives of the sector tell me that it is almost impossible for them to plan for their future until they know what access they will have to EU markets. Will the Minister ensure that their voices are heard in these negotiations, as well as those of the big boys in financial services and the automotive industries?
Margot James
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has regular meetings with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry and the agriculturel sector, and Ministers throughout the Government engage in many discussions with representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association about how they can continue to build on the strengths of their exports beyond the EU as well as within the single market.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
During a live televised debate two days before the Brexit vote, Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said that the EU provided “a level playing field” for small businesses, and that if the UK were to leave the EU, the rest of the EU would impose tariffs and taxes. Will the Minister please tell us how many of the 1.2 million jobs provided by small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland she estimates will be at risk from those tariffs and taxes once they come into force?
Margot James
As I have said, the Government are committed to gaining maximum access to the single market and trade within it for all British companies, and that includes Scottish SMEs.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. A number of very loud private conversations are taking place. Let us have some order for a very senior and respected Member of the House of 33 years’ standing, Sir David Amess.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland held round-table discussions with representatives of the Scottish food and drink industry in August and October, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met representatives of a range of food and drink businesses during her visit to Scotland earlier this month.
Sir David Amess
Given that Scotch whisky is the finest in the world and such a valuable export, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK’s decision to leave the European Union may result in even more opportunities?
George Eustice
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Scotch whisky is a fantastic success story for this country: in 2015, overseas sales were worth £3.9 billion. Earlier this year I attended an event in Tokyo to promote great British drinks, including Scotch whisky, which is particularly popular in Japan.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady has ever fully realised the extent of her own popularity on the Government Benches.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Is the Secretary of State aware that the value of exports from the rest of the UK to Scotland is more than £50 billion? That is more than the value of Scotland’s exports to the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, regardless of any constitutional arrangements that may be made in the future, the trading relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is important to both constituent parts?
George Eustice
I think that what the hon. Lady has said underlines the fact that the union that is really vital to this country is the United Kingdom, because there is very close trade within it.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have regular meetings with Scottish Government Ministers. I last met the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution at the Finance Quadrilateral on 21 October. Both Governments are committed to providing all necessary support for the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Mr Jayawardena
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a core principle of stable, accountable, mature government that Governments must not fiddle their own forecasts, but must instead answer for their choices, and the consequences of those choices, to the people whom they govern?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and the transfer of income tax and welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament does just that. No longer will the SNP and the Scottish Government simply be able to complain. If they genuinely have ideas, they will be able to do something about it, and the people of Scotland will understand the tax implications.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Mr Speaker
With reference to the work of the Independent Fiscal Commission, I call the Minister to answer.
David Mundell
I am sure that the Independent Fiscal Commission will have noted that my colleagues in the Conservative group in Holyrood voted against the SNP’s motion because we have absolutely no idea where the SNP stands in relation to the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Peter Grant
“Bairns come first” is the title of a report recently produced by a number of organisations, including Fife Gingerbread and Citizens Advice and Rights Fife. It found that a third of families who should have been claiming child maintenance support did not apply, that a major barrier to applying was the £20 application fee, and that the 4% collection fee had a serious impact on family budgets. Will the Prime Minister undertake to review those unfair charges?
The Prime Minister
Trying to ensure that those responsible for children actually pay for their children when a family has broken up has been a long-standing question which this House has addressed. There have been various ways of dealing with it through the agency that has been responsible. It is right that the changes that have been introduced are on a more level basis and more people are able to access the support they need as a result.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I know that the issue of the north-west relief road in Shrewsbury has been of particular concern to him; it is a priority for him and it has received considerable local backing. I understand that the local Marches LEP has put in a bid for feasibility funding so that it can prepare a business case for the scheme. What I can say at the moment is that the announcement of the successful bids for feasibility funding is expected very shortly indeed.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Government’s sustainability and transformation plans for the national health service hide £22 billion of cuts to our service, according to research by the British Medical Association. That risks
“starving services of resources and patients of vital care.”
That quote comes from Dr Mark Porter of the BMA. When he calls this process “a mess”, where is he wrong?
The Prime Minister
The national health service is indeed looking for savings within the NHS which will be reinvested in the NHS, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who are providing not just the £8 billion of extra funding that the NHS requested, but £10 billion of extra funding. Sustainability and transformation plans are being developed at local level in the interests of local people by local clinicians.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is very strange that the Prime Minister should say that, because the Select Committee on Health, chaired by her hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), says that the figure is actually £4.5 billion, not £10 billion; there is quite a big difference there.
Part of the reason for the strain on our national health service is that more than 1 million people are not receiving the social care they need. As a result of that, there has been an increase in emergency admissions for older patients. Margaret wrote to me this week—[Interruption.] It is not funny. She described how her 89-year-old mother suffered two falls leading to hospital admissions due to the lack of nursing care, and went on to say,
“My mother is worth more than this.”
What action will the Prime Minister take to stop the neglect of older people, which ends up forcing them into A&E admissions when they should be cared for at home or in a care home?
The Prime Minister
Of course social care is an area of concern, and it is a key issue for many people. That is why the Government have introduced the better care fund and the social care precept for local authorities, and why we are encouraging the health service and local authorities to work together to deal with precisely the social care and bed blocking issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
We have introduced the better care fund and the social care precept, but let us just look at what the Labour Government did in their 13 years. They said that they would deal with social care in their 1997 manifesto. They introduced a royal commission in 1999, a Green Paper in 2005 and the Wanless review in 2006. They said they would sort it in the comprehensive spending review of 2007, and produced another Green Paper in 2009: 13 years, and they did nothing.
Jeremy Corbyn
As the Prime Minister well knows, health spending trebled under the last Labour Government and the levels of satisfaction with the health service were at their highest ever in 2010. This Government’s choice was to cut social care by £4.6 billion in the last Parliament, at the same time as they found the space, shall we say, to cut billions from corporate taxation bills. This is affecting patients leaving hospital as well. In the last four years, the number of patients unable to be transferred from hospital due to the lack of adequate social care has increased by one third. Will the Prime Minister ensure that her Government will guarantee all our elderly people the dignity they deserve?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the importance of caring for elderly people and providing them with the dignity they deserve. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Government have done nothing on social care, but I repeat that we have introduced the social care precept, which is being made use of by my local authorities and by his local authority. We have also introduced the better care fund. He talks about support for elderly people, but let me remind him which Government it was who put in place the triple lock for pensioners. That has ensured the largest increase in pensions for elderly people.
Jeremy Corbyn
The precept is a drop in the ocean compared with what is necessary for social care. I shall give Members an example. I am sure the whole House will have been appalled by the revelations in the BBC’s “Panorama” programme this week. They showed older people being systematically mistreated. The Care Quality Commission’s assessment is that the care homes run by the Morleigh Group “require improvement”, and it has issued warning notices. The commission goes on to say that the owner
“has allowed the services to deteriorate even further. She has utterly neglected her duty of care to the residents of these homes.”
What action are the Government going to take to protect the residents of those homes?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the quality of care that is provided in homes and the way in which elderly people are treated. I am sure everybody is appalled when we see examples of poor and terrible treatment being given to elderly and vulnerable people in care homes. What we do about it is ensure that the Care Quality Commission is able to step in and take action and that it has powers to ensure that nobody in the chain of responsibility is immune from legal accountability. We know that there is more that can be done, and that is why the CQC is looking into ways of improving its processes and increasing its efficiency. The Minister for community health and care, will be writing to the CQC shortly to see how we can improve what it does. It is the CQC that deals with these issues, and we have that in place. Is there more we can do? Yes, and we are doing it.
Jeremy Corbyn
The problem seems to be that that home was understaffed. We should not blame often underpaid and hard-pressed care workers; we should be ensuring that there are enough of them—properly paid— in all such homes. There was a serious problem of understaffing, and it was the last Labour Government who established the CQC. A warning notice is insufficient —we need stronger action than that.
Yesterday, the Government proposed that patients may have to show passports or other ID to access non-emergency healthcare. Have the Government considered the impact on elderly people? The last census showed us that 9.5 million people in this country do not have passports. Instead of distracting people with divisive, impractical policies, could the Prime Minister provide the NHS and social care with the money that it needs to care for the people who need the support?
The Prime Minister
Over this Parliament, the Government will be spending half a trillion pounds on the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman asks about a process to ensure that people who are receiving NHS treatment are entitled to receive that NHS treatment. For many years, there has been concern about health tourism and about people turning up in the UK and accessing health services but not paying for them. We want to ensure not only that those who are entitled to use the services are indeed able to see them free at the point of delivery, but that we deal with health tourism and those who should be paying for the use of our health service.
Jeremy Corbyn
Simon Stevens told us two weeks ago that the next three years will be the toughest ever for NHS funding and that 2018 would see health spending per person cut for the first time ever in this country. The National Audit Office has reported that the cost of health tourism is over a hundred times less than the £22 billion of cuts that the NHS faces from this Government. The reality is that under this Government there are 6,000 fewer mental health nurses and a record 3.9 million people on NHS waiting lists. All of us who visit A&E departments know the stress that staff are under and that waiting times are getting longer and longer. One million people in this country are not receiving the social care that they need. Instead of looking for excuses and scapegoats, should not the Prime Minister be ensuring that health and social care is properly resourced and properly funded, to take away the stress and fear that people face in old age and the stress that is placed on our very hard-working NHS and social care staff?
The Prime Minister
Billions of pounds extra into social care through the social care precept and the better care fund; half a trillion pounds being spent on the national health service; a record level of investment in mental health in the national health service—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members must not shout down or attempt to shout down the Prime Minister. The question has been asked and was heard, and the answer must be heard.
The Prime Minister
There is a fundamental point that the right hon. Gentleman refrains from mentioning: we can afford to pay for the national health service and for social care only if we have a strong economy creating wealth, and that is precisely what he is going to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a few minutes’ time.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. This is very discourteous. The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate question and it and every other question should be heard fully and with politeness.
Gordon Henderson
Thank you, Mr Speaker—and I will repeat it. Some remainers do not seem to understand the meaning of the word “democracy”, which I would remind them is government by the people, especially the rule of the majority. With that in mind, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give my constituents and me that article 50 will be triggered by March next year?
The Prime Minister
I am clear that we will trigger article 50 by the end of March next year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the key point: it was decided by this Parliament, six to one, that the people should have the opportunity to vote on membership of the European Union. The vote was held, the turnout was high and the public gave their verdict. There must be no second referendum and no attempt to weasel out of this, and this is the Government who will deliver on the vote of the British people.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
We on the Scottish National party Benches have repeatedly brought up the issue of the devastating impact on disabled people of the UK benefits system. The Government plan to cut support for people with long-term health difficulties by £30 a week. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) proposed a motion, which was passed by this House with support from both Labour and Conservative Members, for these cuts to be postponed. Will the Prime Minister act on the vote of this House?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we have been doing in relation to benefits for disabled people: the overall funding for disability benefits will be higher in every year up to 2020 than it was in 2010; we have been focusing support on those who most need it—those who are not able to get into the workplace; and for those who are able, at some stage, to get into the workplace, we have been providing a wider package of support. I am pleased to say that over the last three years nearly 600,000 more disabled people are now in the workplace, with the dignity of having a job, which is what many people with disabilities want to have. So we are focusing help on those who most need it and helping those with disabilities who want to get into the workplace to do just that.
Angus Robertson
But it is widely trailed that the Prime Minister will make changes that will impact on benefit recipients in work. Will she confirm that she has no intention of helping people with disabilities and medical conditions? Why should people who are unable to earn a living be punished for their disability or illness by losing £30 a week? Does she have any intention of changing that?
The Prime Minister
I have just set out for the right hon. Gentleman the ways in which we are providing support and help for those people who have disabilities. As I said, the overall spending on disability benefits will be higher in every year to 2020 than it was in 2010. But it is also important to recognise that when we give support for people with disabilities, it is not simply about the benefits system and how much money they are given; for those who are able to get into work and are on that part of the employment and support allowance, we provide packages that are outside the benefits as well, because we recognise that people want the dignity of getting into the workplace. That is what we are helping people with disabilities who can work to do.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of infrastructure expenditure in helping to deal with productivity in our economy, and I am pleased that that £1.3 billion for new roads does show us investing in the long-term future for Britain. It is about delivering jobs and economic growth, and about making sure that this economy works for everyone. It is just one part of the package that we are proposing, but of course my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be setting our proposals out more clearly in a few minutes’ time.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, this is a very difficult time for the whole family. I am sure that we are all concerned about the reports of the impact that detention in Iran is having on Nazanin Ratcliffe’s health. This is an issue that has repeatedly been raised with the Iranian Government by the UK Government—by both the previous Foreign Secretary and the current Foreign Secretary. I personally raised it with President Rouhani on 20 September in New York, and I stressed the importance of finding a resolution as soon as possible. I have since written to President Rouhani requesting confirmation of the charges, the sentence and the appeals process, and I have asked for assurances that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe will be allowed full legal representation and regular contact with her family. We will continue to do everything that we can for the family, and that includes the British Government remaining ready to help to bring back Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s daughter to Britain if that is the request.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise that we are subject to our own Prudential Regulation Authority, but the overall point that he makes about the importance of house building is absolutely correct. We do need to build more homes. That is something that the Government have been doing. We have seen about 900,000 new homes being built since 2010, but there is more for us to do, and that is what this Government are working on.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear in this House on many occasions about the plan that we have for Brexit. Crucially, we will be leaving the European Union and we will be triggering article 50 by the end of March next year, and that is when the formal negotiations will start. It is absolutely right that we do not set out at this stage every single detail of our proposed negotiating strategy, because that would be the best way to get the worst possible deal for Britain.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The extra investment that we will be putting into research and development is a crucial part of our long-term task of ensuring that we have the economy and the growth and prosperity that we need in this country. The new funds will help to put us at the cutting edge of scientific discovery. That is already happening. I visited the Wellcome Genome Campus in Cambridge on Monday and saw for myself the really exciting and transformational work that is being done, and it is coming out of the knowledge base and the scientific research of the United Kingdom. We want to see more of that, which is why we will be investing in it.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the appalling atrocities that are taking place in Aleppo, and it is right that we, along with our international allies, should be doing all that we can to try to bring this to a stop. He will recognise that the issue of who hosts sporting events is not in the Government’s remit. What is in the Government’s remit and what we are doing, as I say, is working with our international allies to put more pressure on Russia to stop the appalling atrocities—the appalling attacks—that are taking place in Aleppo. What we want to see is an agreement for a political transition to a Syria without President Assad.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend will, of course, be waiting in anticipation for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement, but he is absolutely right that, as we look at improving productivity in this country and as we look to the economy of the future, the provision of superfast broadband and those new technological opportunities for people is absolutely a crucial part of that, and that is something that this Government recognise and will act on.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I send our best wishes to those police officers who were assaulted in the hon. Lady’s constituency last week? It is important that we recognise that when police officers go out on duty—and, indeed, for many off duty—they sometimes find themselves intervening in situations where they are on the receiving end of assaults and violence against them. They are willing to go forward in the line of duty, where others are not, and we recognise that. One of the things we want to do in relation to this is to identify rather better the number of assaults that are taking place. That is why last year we issued some provisional figures. We are improving those figures now this year. Sentencing guidelines already allow for an assault on a police officer to be taken as an aggravating factor into account, but also new developments, like the body-worn videos, actually help to provide the evidence that ensures that people can be brought to justice and that actually deter assaults in the first place.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I know that the Prime Minister shares my concern at the level of acute hospital bed blocking. Does she agree that part of the solution is to promote community hospital beds, where they still exist in places such as Warminster and Shaftesbury, as part of the sustainability and transformation planning process?
The Prime Minister
As regards the STP process, of course, that will take place at local level—it will be at the local level that these proposals will be considered and put forward by local clinicians—but the concept of being able to deal with bed blocking in a variety of ways is absolutely right. There are good examples around the country of where having those step-down beds available is actually resolving the problem of bed blocking. There are other ways in which that is being done—in those parts of the country where social workers are being employed by hospital trusts, for example. But is it very good to recognise the good practice when it is being done, and we shall see more of that across the country.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
The Prime Minister
The question of whether or not an individual would be extradited or a request would be made for extradition is for the appropriate investigation and prosecution authorities to decide. We do, of course, recognise the concerns about those cases where it is still possible to bring people to justice, and obviously we want to see that being done.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
During the past six years we have had three major referendums, all eliciting varying degrees of excitement. Does the Prime Minister agree that one can have too much excitement, and will she therefore rule out any further referendums in this Parliament?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down a particular route. One thing that I will certainly rule out is a second referendum on whether we leave the European Union.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The Government are taking action in a variety of ways to address homelessness. One of the key things we need to do is ensure that we see more homes being built in this country. The hon. Lady talks about austerity in the tone that she uses, but austerity is about us living within our means. When we talk about the Government providing support for individuals, we should always remember that taxpayers have to pay for that support, and many taxpayers are themselves struggling to get by.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday the Peninsula Rail Task Force launched its report, which was commissioned following the storms that severed Devon and Cornwall’s vital rail link, just as our vital rail link was severed again, this time by flooding. Does she welcome the report and will she commit the Government to ensuring that the vision it outlines is delivered?
The Prime Minister
May I suggest that my hon. Friend exercises a little more patience and listens very carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to say?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman presents of what the Government are doing in relation to the armed forces. We are investing billions of pounds in ensuring that our armed forces do have the missiles, the ships for the Royal Navy and the other pieces of equipment for the other armed forces. The picture that he presents is not the picture I recognise.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be good for confidence in the rule of law if judges did not enter into speculative public thoughts on cases that they are about to hear?
The Prime Minister
In this country we value the independence of our judiciary—that is, the independence of members of the judiciary when they come to make their judgments in court. Also, they are independent and it is for them to determine what they choose to put in their speeches. It is not for the Government to tell them what to do.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
As millions of public sector workers face another year of suppressed pay, after another week of shambolic Brexit negotiations, and with the national health service facing a winter crisis and crying out for cash, does the Prime Minister worry that her Government are only just about managing?
The Prime Minister
We are very clear about the amounts of money that we are putting into the national health service. The hon. Gentleman talks about the negotiations. Actually, the negotiations for us leaving the European Union do not formally start until we trigger article 50. We will trigger article 50 by the end of March next year. The hon. Gentleman wants to stop us leaving the European Union by denying the people the decision and the deliverability of the vote that they took, rightly, on 23 June. He wants to deny people what they want; we are going to give it to them.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
May I raise with the Prime Minister the concerns of millions of drivers and hauliers across the United Kingdom who worry about the cost of driving and fuel duty? Will the Government look at keeping that down? Will they also look at how forecourt pricing has worked as the oil price changes? The prices jump like a rocket and fall like a feather.
The Prime Minister
I recognise that, as my hon. Friend says, many people look with very great concern at the cost of motoring in this country. I suggest, as I have to some of my other hon. Friends, that he be a little more patient and wait for the Chancellor’s autumn statement.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has talked about her worries about social care, but surely we have to judge her by her actions. In the last six years there has been an average 37% cut in local authority funding—57% in my area—and nearly a quarter of all those older people in need of social care have been denied any help at all. What is she going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady might have noticed that I have been asked several questions about social care—[Interruption]—and I will give the answer that I have given previously. What the Government are doing about social care is to put more money in through the better care fund, to give local authorities the opportunity that is in the social care precept and to make sure that health and social care come together to ensure that we deal with the issue of bed blocking.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
How many of us would charge into a darkened store at night knowing that inside were three mask-wearing, crowbar-wielding thugs trying to rob it? My two constituents, Nigel Dunmore and Grant McGarry, did just that; as a result of their intervention, the thugs fled, leaving the money, and the staff were hurt less, although one of the gentlemen was himself hurt. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising their courage and selflessness in carrying out this extraordinary act of bravado?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I commend the bravery and courage shown by those two individuals—Nigel and Grant, I think he said—who stepped into that situation to ensure that it was not as bad as it might have been. That is incredible bravery; many members of the public would not have been willing to step forward in that way. Will he pass my best wishes—and the best wishes of the whole House, I am sure—on to those individuals?
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister believe that big companies should put a worker on the board?
The Prime Minister
I believe that we should see workers’ representation on boards. I make no apology for the fact that this Government are going to deliver on that. For all its years in government, the Labour party did nothing.
Norfolk Island
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition to the House for no fewer than 866 of Her Majesty’s most loyal subjects who live in the Australian external territory of Norfolk Island. I know that you support Norfolk Island, Madam Deputy Speaker, having visited the territory some years ago. Today’s petition coincides with this year’s visit to Norfolk Island by me and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). We visited the island to see what is happening about the right of self-governance being removed from the people of that territory.
As hon. Members will know, we cherish the fact that territories and dependencies should have the right of self-determination. As we uphold that for our territories, so should Australia uphold it for the people of Norfolk Island. The petition also coincides with the visit to the United Kingdom of the former Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, the Hon. Andre Nobbs, and the President of the Council of Elders of Norfolk Island, Mr Albert Buffett.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that on behalf of residents of Norfolk Island, there is an identified historical, cultural, legal and constitutional relationship which Norfolk Island and the Norfolk Island people have celebrated since 1856 with the United Kingdom and the British people.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Government to support the people of Norfolk Island to be able to uphold their right of self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter specific to decolonisation and humbly request the same right of self-determination as afforded to the people of the British Overseas territories.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001982]
Autumn Statement
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
It is a privilege to report today on an economy that the International Monetary Fund predicts will be the fastest-growing major advanced economy in the world this year. It is an economy with employment at a record high and unemployment at an 11-year low; and an economy that, through the hard work of the British people, has bounced back from the depths of Labour’s recession. It is an economy that has confounded commentators at home and abroad with its strength and resilience since the British people decided, exactly five months ago today, to leave the European Union and chart a new future for our country.
That decision will change the course of Britain’s history. It has thrown into sharp relief the fundamental strengths of the British economy that will ensure our future success: the global reach of our services industries; the strength of our science and high-tech manufacturing base; and the cutting-edge British businesses that are leading the world in disruptive technologies. But it is a decision that also makes more urgent than ever the need to tackle our economy’s long-term weaknesses such as the productivity gap, the housing challenge, and the damaging imbalance in economic growth and prosperity across our country. We resolve today to confront those challenges head on, to prepare our country to seize the opportunities ahead, and, in doing so, to build an economy that works for everyone—an economy where every corner of this United Kingdom is part of our national success.
I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). My style will, of course, be different from his. I suspect that I will prove no more adept at pulling rabbits from hats than my successor as Foreign Secretary has been at retrieving balls from the back of scrums, but my focus on building Britain’s long-term future will be the same. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton took over an economy on the brink of collapse, with the highest budget deficit in our post-war history, and brought that down by two thirds. That is a record of which he can be proud.
But times have moved on, and our task now is to prepare our economy to be resilient as we exit the EU and to be match-fit for the transition that will follow. So we will maintain our commitment to fiscal discipline while recognising the need for investment to drive productivity, and for fiscal headroom to support the economy through the transition.
Let me turn now to the forecasts. Since 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility has provided an independent economic and fiscal forecast to which the Government must respond—gone are the days when the Chancellor could mark his own homework—and I thank Robert Chote and his team for their hard work. Today’s OBR forecast is for growth to be 2.1% in 2016—higher than forecast in March. In 2017, the OBR forecasts growth to slow to 1.4%, which it attributes to lower investment and weaker consumer demand driven, respectively, by greater uncertainty and by higher inflation resulting from sterling depreciation. That is slower, of course, than we would wish, but still equivalent to the IMF’s forecast for Germany, and higher than the forecast for growth in many of our European neighbours, including France and Italy. That fact will, no doubt, be a source of very considerable irritation to some.
As the effects of uncertainty diminish, the OBR forecasts growth recovering to 1.7% in 2018, 2.1% in 2019 and 2020, and 2% in 2021. While the OBR is clear that it cannot predict the deal the UK will strike with the EU, its current view is that the referendum decision means that potential growth over the forecast period is likely to be 2.4 percentage points lower than would otherwise have been the case. The OBR acknowledges that there is a higher degree of uncertainty around these figures than usual.
Despite slower growth, the UK labour market is forecast to remain robust. We have delivered over 2.7 million new jobs since 2010, and this forecast shows that number growing in every year—another 500,000 jobs created over the OBR forecast, providing security for working people across the length and breadth of Britain.
For those who claim that the recovery is just a south-east phenomenon, I have some news: over the past year employment grew fastest in the north-east, the claimant count fell fastest in Northern Ireland, pay grew most strongly in the west midlands, and every UK nation and region saw a record number of people in work. That is a labour market recovery that is working for everyone.
Monetary policy has played an important role in supporting growth since the referendum decision, but a credible fiscal policy remains essential for maintaining market confidence and restoring the economy to long-term health. In view of the uncertainty facing the economy, and in the face of slower growth forecasts, we no longer seek to deliver a surplus in 2019-20, but the Prime Minister and I remain firmly committed to seeing the public finances return to balance as soon as practicable, while leaving enough flexibility to support the economy in the near term.
Today I am publishing a new draft charter for budget responsibility with three fiscal rules: first, that the public finances should be returned to balance as early as possible in the next Parliament and, in the interim, cyclically adjusted borrowing should be below 2% by the end of this Parliament; secondly, that public sector net debt as a share of GDP must be falling by the end of this Parliament; and, thirdly, that welfare spending must be within a cap set by the Government and monitored by the OBR. In the absence of an effective framework, the welfare bill in our country spiralled out of control, with spending on working-age benefits trebling in real terms between 1980 and 2010. As a result of the action that we have taken since 2010, that spending has now stabilised. The cap I am announcing today takes into account the policy changes made since the last Budget, setting a realistic baseline reflecting all announced welfare policies. I confirm again today that the Government have no plans to introduce further welfare savings measures in this Parliament beyond those already announced.
I now turn to the OBR’s fiscal forecasts, but first I will set out the key drivers of changes since the Budget: the post-Budget changes that were made to welfare and housing policies cost the Exchequer £8.6 billion over the forecast period; expected Office for National Statistics classification changes have added £12 billion since the Budget; and tax receipts have been lower than expected this year, causing the OBR to revise down projected revenues in the future. Added to this is a structural effect of rapidly rising incorporation and self-employment, which further erodes revenues.
Combining those pressures with the impact of forecast weaker growth, and taking account of the measures I shall announce today, the OBR now forecasts that, in cash terms, borrowing is set to be £68.2 billion this year, falling to £59 billion next year and £46.5 billion in 2018-19, and then £21.9 billion, £20.7 billion, and finally £17.2 billion in 2021-22. Overall, public sector net borrowing as a percentage of GDP will fall from 4% last year to 3.5% this year, and it will continue to fall over the Parliament, reaching 0.7% in 2021-22. This will be the lowest deficit as a share of GDP in two decades. The OBR expects cyclically adjusted public sector net borrowing to be 0.8% of GDP in 2020-21, comfortably meeting our target to reduce it to less than 2% and, importantly, leaving significant flexibility to respond to any headwinds that the economy may encounter.
The OBR’s forecast of higher borrowing and slower asset sales, together with the temporary effect of the Bank of England’s action to stimulate growth, translates into an increased forecast for debt in the near term. The OBR forecasts that debt will rise from 84.2% of GDP last year to 87.3% this year, peaking at 90.2% in 2017-18 as the Bank of England’s monetary policy interventions approach their full effect. In 2018-19, debt is projected to fall to 89.7% of national income—the first fall in the national debt as a share of GDP since 2001-02—and it is forecast to continue falling thereafter. Members might be interested to know that after stripping out the effects of the Bank of England interventions, underlying debt peaks this year at 82.4% of GDP and falls thereafter to 77.7% by 2021-22.
It is customary in the run-up to the autumn statement to hear representations from the shadow Chancellor of the day, usually for untenable levels of spending and borrowing. Conservative Members used to think that Ed Balls’ demands were an extreme example, but I have to say that the current shadow Chancellor has outperformed him in the fiscal incontinence sweepstake. What we do not know, of course, is whether the shadow Chancellor can also dance—[Interruption.] He can. Good; a second career awaits him.
I have received some more measured representations from a range of external bodies. Some have called for fiscal expansion, while others have suggested that there is no need at all to respond to a changed economic outlook. That reflects, to be fair, the challenge that we face of resolving how best to protect the recovery and build on the economy’s manifest strengths, yet at the same time respond appropriately to the warnings of a more difficult period ahead.
But with our debt forecast to peak at over 90% next year, and a deficit this year of 3.5%, I have reached my own judgment. It is a judgment based on a sober analysis of our fiscal position, and also on a realistic appraisal of the weakness of UK productivity and the urgent need to address our fiscal challenge from both ends—continuing to control public expenditure, but also growing the potential of the economy and protecting the tax base. So we choose in this autumn statement to prioritise additional high-value investment, specifically in infrastructure and innovation, that will directly contribute to raising Britain’s productivity. The key judgment we make today is that our hard-won credibility on public spending means that we can fund this commitment in the short term from additional borrowing, while funding all other new policies announced in this autumn statement through additional tax and spending measures. That is the responsible way to secure our economy for the long term.
The productivity gap is well known to hon. and right hon. Members, but shocking none the less—it bears repeating. We lag the US and Germany by some 30 percentage points in productivity, but we also lag France by over 20 points and Italy by 8 points, which means, in the real world, that it takes a German worker four days to produce what we make in five. That means, in turn, that too many British workers work longer hours for lower pay than their counterparts, and that has to change if we are to build an economy that works for everyone. Raising productivity is essential for the high-wage, high-skill economy that will deliver higher living standards for working people across this country.
As a result of decisions taken by my predecessor, public investment is higher over this decade than it was over the whole of the period of the last Labour Government, but today I can go further. I can announce that we are forming a new national productivity investment fund of £23 billion to be spent on innovation and infrastructure over the next five years—investing today for the economy of the future.
Let me set out for the House how this money will be used. We do not invest enough in research, development and innovation. As the pace of technology advances and competition from the rest of the world increases, we must build on our strengths in science and tech innovation to ensure that the next generation of discoveries is not only made here, but developed and produced in Britain. So today I can confirm the additional investment in R and D, rising to an extra £2 billion per year by 2020-21, that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday.
Economically productive infrastructure directly benefits businesses, but families, too, rely on roads, rail, telecoms and, especially, housing. We have made good progress, with the number of new homes being built last year hitting an eight-year high, but for too many the goal of home ownership remains out of reach. In October, my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary launched the £3 billion home building fund to unlock over 200,000 homes and up to £2 billion to accelerate construction on public sector land, but we must go further still. The challenge of delivering the housing we so desperately need in the places where it is currently least affordable is not, of course, a new one, but the effect of unaffordable housing on our nation’s productivity makes it an urgent one. My right hon. Friend will bring forward a housing White Paper in due course to address these long-term challenges but, in the meantime, we can take further steps.
One of the biggest objections to housing development, as hon. and right hon. Members will know from their constituencies, is often the impact on local infrastructure, so we will focus Government infrastructure investment to unlock land for housing with a new £2.3 billion housing infrastructure fund to deliver infrastructure for up to 100,000 new homes in areas of high demand. To provide affordable housing that supports a wide range of need, we will invest a further £1.4 billion to deliver 40,000 additional affordable homes. I will also relax restrictions on Government grant to allow providers to deliver a wider range of housing types. I can also announce a large-scale regional pilot of right to buy for housing association tenants, and continued support for home ownership through the Help to Buy equity loan scheme and the Help to Buy ISA.
This package means that over the course of this Parliament, the Government expect to more than double, in real terms, annual capital spending on housing. Coupled with our resolve to tackle the long-term challenges of land supply, this commitment to housing delivery represents a step change in our ambition to increase the supply of homes for sale and for rent to deliver a housing market that works for everyone.
Reliable transport networks are essential to growth and productivity, so this autumn statement commits significant additional funding to help to keep Britain moving now, and to invest in the transport networks and vehicles of the future. I will commit: an additional £1.1 billion of investment in English local transport networks, where small investments can often offer big wins; £220 million additionally to address traffic pinch points on strategic roads; £450 million to trial digital signalling on our railways to achieve a step change in reliability and to squeeze more capacity out of our existing rail infrastructure—I know the Leader of the Opposition will welcome that—and, finally, £390 million to build on our competitive advantage in low-emission vehicles and the development of connected autonomous vehicles, plus a 100% first year capital allowance for the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
The Department for Transport will continue to work with Transport for the North to develop detailed options for northern powerhouse rail. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will set out more details of specific projects and priorities over the coming weeks.
Our future transport, business and lifestyle needs will require world-class digital infrastructure to underpin them, so my ambition—
Mr Hammond
Yes—it says here because I wrote it here.
My ambition is for the UK to be a world leader in 5G. That means a full-fibre network; a step change in speed, security and reliability. So we will invest over £1 billion in our digital infrastructure to catalyse private investment in fibre networks and to support 5G trials. From April, we will introduce 100% business rates relief for a five-year period on new fibre infrastructure, supporting further roll-out of fibre to homes and businesses.
We have chosen to borrow to kick-start a transformation in infrastructure and innovation investment, but we must sustain this effort over the long term if we are to make a lasting difference to the UK’s productivity performance, so today I have written to the National Infrastructure Commission to ask it to make its recommendations on the future infrastructure needs of the country, using the assumption that the Government will invest between 1% and 1.2% of GDP every year from 2020 in economic infrastructure covered by the commission. To put that in context, we will spend around 0.8% of GDP on the same definition this year.
I am also backing the commission’s interim recommendations on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, published last week, with £110 million of funding for east-west rail and a commitment to deliver the new Oxford-Cambridge expressway. That project can be more than just a transport link. It can become a transformational tech corridor, drawing on the world-class research strengths of our two best-known universities. I welcome the commission’s continuing work on delivery model options. We will carefully consider its final recommendations in due course.
The major increase in infrastructure spending I have announced today will represent a significant increase in funding through the Barnett formula, of more than £250 million to the Northern Ireland Executive, £400 million to the Welsh Government and £800 million to the Scottish Government.
Public investment is only part of the picture, however. About half of our economic infrastructure is financed by the private sector, and we will continue to support that investment through the UK guarantee scheme, which I am today extending until at least 2026. The new capital investment I have announced will provide the financial backbone for the Government’s industrial strategy that the Prime Minister spoke about on Monday, a firm foundation upon which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will work with industry to build our ambition of an economy that works for all.
I can announce four further measures to back business. I am doubling the UK export finance capacity to make it easier for British businesses to export. I am funding Charlie Mayfield’s business-led initiative to boost management skills across British businesses. I am taking a first step to tackle the long-standing problem of our fastest growing start-up tech firms being snapped up by bigger companies, rather than growing to scale, by injecting an additional £400 million into venture capital funds through the British Business Bank, unlocking £1 billion of new finance for growing firms. I am also launching today a Treasury-led review of the barriers to accessing patient capital in the UK, so that we can take further action to address them.
This Government recognise that, for too long, economic growth in our country has been too concentrated in London and the south-east. That is not just a social problem but an economic problem. London is one of the highest-productivity cities in the world and we should celebrate that fact. But no other major developed economy has such a gap between the productivity of its capital city and its second and third cities, so we must drive up the performance of our regional cities. Today we publish our strategy for addressing productivity barriers in the northern powerhouse, and give the go ahead to a programme of major roads schemes in the north. Our midlands engine strategy will follow shortly, but I am today providing funding so that the evaluation study for the midlands rail hub can go ahead.
In addition, we are investing in local infrastructure in every region of England. I can announce the allocation of £1.8 billion from the local growth fund to the English regions: £556 million to local enterprise partnerships in the north of England, £542 million to the midlands and east of England, and £683 million to LEPs in the south-west, south-east and London. We will announce the detailed breakdown of allocations to individual LEPs shortly.
Devolution remains at the heart of this Government’s approach to supporting local growth, and we recommit today to our city deals with Swansea, Edinburgh, north Wales and Tay cities. I can also announce today we are beginning negotiations on a city deal for Stirling so that every single city in Scotland will be on course to have a city deal. To support new mayoral combined authorities in England, I can announce that we will grant them new borrowing powers to reflect their new responsibilities.
While we continue discussions with London and the west midlands on possible devolution of further powers I can announce today that London will receive £3.15 billion as its share of national affordable housing funding, to deliver a commitment of more than 90,000 affordable homes. I can also announce that we are devolving to London the adult education budget, and giving London greater control over the delivery of employment support services for the hardest to help.
I have deliberately avoided making this statement into a long list of individual projects being supported, but I am going to make one exception. I will act today, with just seven days to spare, to save one of the UK’s most important historic houses, Wentworth Woodhouse near Rotherham. It is said to be the inspiration for Pemberley in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”. But in 1946, in an extraordinary act of cultural vandalism, the then Labour Government authorised extensive opencast coal mining virtually up to the front door of this precious property. Perhaps that is Labour’s idea of a northern powerhouse. Wentworth Woodhouse is now—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear about this house. It sounds very interesting indeed.
Mr Hammond
Wentworth Woodhouse is now at critical risk of being lost to future generations. A local effort has been hugely successful in securing millions in funding from various foundations and charities, subject to the balance required being found by 30 November. We will today provide a £7.6 million grant towards urgent repairs to safeguard this key piece of northern heritage—all but destroyed by a Labour Government, and saved by a Conservative one.
I can also confirm distribution of a further £102 million of LIBOR bank fines to armed forces and emergency services charities, including, my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear, £20 million to support the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall in Nottinghamshire, as well as £3 million from the tampon tax fund for Comic Relief to distribute to a range of women’s charities.
We choose to invest in our economic infrastructure because it can transform the growth potential of our economy, as well as improving the quality of people’s lives. That investment is possible only because the Government are prepared to take the tough decisions—every one of them opposed by the Labour party—to maintain control of current spending. When we took office in 2010, public spending was 45% of GDP; this year, it is set to be 40%. During those six years, we have seen crime fall by more than a quarter, the highest proportion ever of good or outstanding schools, the number of doctors in our NHS increasing by 10,000, pensioner poverty at its lowest level ever, the lowest ever number of children being raised in workless households and the highest ever number of young people going on to study full time at university.
We have demonstrated beyond doubt that controlling public spending is compatible with world-class public services and social improvement. But, as the OBR’s debt projections demonstrate, we have more work to do to eliminate the deficit. Departmental spending plans set out in the spending review last autumn will therefore remain in place, and departmental expenditure in 2021-22 will grow in line with inflation. The £3.5 billion of savings to be delivered through the efficiency review, announced at the Budget and led by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, must be delivered in full. I have, however, exceptionally agreed to provide additional funding to the Ministry of Justice to tackle urgent prison safety issues by increasing the number of prison officers by 2,500.
Having run two large spending Departments in previous roles, I came to this job with some very clear views about the relationship between the Treasury and spending Departments. I want Departments to be incentivised to drive efficiencies, and I want the Treasury to be an enabler for good, effective spending across government. To kick-start this new approach, I will allow up to £1 billion of the savings found by the efficiency review to be reinvested in 2019-20 in priority areas and I have budgeted today accordingly.
We manage public spending so that we can invest in the public’s priorities. The Government have underlined those priorities with a series of commitments and protections for the duration of this Parliament. I can confirm today that, despite the fiscal pressures, we will meet our commitments to protect the budgets of key public services and defence; keep our promise to the world’s poorest through our overseas aid budget; and meet our pledge to our country’s pensioners through the triple lock. But as we look ahead to the next Parliament, we will need to ensure that we tackle the challenges of rising longevity and fiscal sustainability, so the Government will review public spending priorities and other commitments for the next Parliament in the light of the evolving fiscal position at the next spending review.
I now turn to taxation. Since 2010, the Government have put a business-led recovery at the heart of our plan. We have cut corporation tax from 28% to 20%, sending the message that Britain is open for business. The additional investment in productivity and infrastructure that I have announced today underscores that message, and the raft of investments in the UK announced since the referendum—by SoftBank, Glaxo, Nissan, Google and Apple among others—confirms it. My priority as Chancellor is to ensure that Britain remains the No. 1 destination for business, creating the investment, the jobs and the prosperity to protect our long-term future. I know how much business values certainty and stability, so I confirm today that we will stick to the business tax road map we set out in March. Corporation tax will fall to 17%, by far the lowest overall rate of corporate tax in the G20. We will deliver the commitments we have made to the oil and gas sector. The carbon price support will continue to be capped out to 2020, and we will implement the business rates reduction package worth £6.7 billion. I can also confirm today that, having consulted further, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will lower the transitional relief cap from 45% next year to 43%, and from 50% to 32% the year after. That’s complicated, but it’s good news—just in case anybody wasn’t sure, Mr Speaker. I will also increase the rural rate relief to 100%, giving small businesses in rural areas a tax break worth up to £2,900 a year.
In return for these highly competitive tax rates, the tax base must be sustainable. From April 2017, we will align the employee and employer national insurance thresholds at £157 a week. There will be no cost to employees, and the maximum cost to business will be an annual £7.18 per employee. Insurance premium tax in this country is lower than in many other European countries, and half the rate of VAT. In order to raise revenue, which is required to fund the spending commitments I am making today, it will rise from 10% currently, to 12% from next June. At the same time, I can confirm the Government’s commitment to legislate next year to end the compensation culture surrounding whiplash claims, a major area of insurance fraud. That will save drivers an average of £40 on their annual premiums.
Technological progress is changing the way people live and work, and the tax system needs to keep pace. For example, the OBR has today highlighted the growing cost to the Exchequer of incorporation. So the Government will consider how we can ensure that the taxation of different ways of working is fair between different individuals doing essentially the same work, and sustains the tax base as the economy undergoes rapid change. We will consult in due course on any proposed changes. In the meantime, the Government will take action now to reduce the difference between the treatment of cash earnings and benefits. The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary by agreement with their employer and pay much lower tax on benefits in kind. That is unfair, so from April 2017 employers and employees who use these schemes will pay the same taxes as everyone else. Following consultation with stakeholders, ultra-low emission cars, pension savings, childcare and the cycle-to-work scheme will be excluded from this change, and certain long-term arrangements will be protected until April 2021. For pensions that have been drawn down, I will also reduce to £4,000 the money purchase annual allowance, to prevent inappropriate double tax relief being gained.
This Government have done more than any other to tackle tax evasion, avoidance and aggressive tax planning. The UK tax gap, it may surprise some Opposition Members to hear, is now one of the lowest in the world. But we must constantly be alert to new threats to our tax base and be willing to move swiftly to counter them. At the Budget, we committed to removing the tax benefits of disguised earnings for employees, and I am now going to do the same for the self-employed and employers, raising a further £630 million over the forecast period. We will shut down inappropriate use of the VAT flat rate scheme that was put in place to help small businesses. We will abolish the tax advantages linked to employee shareholder status, in response to growing evidence that it is primarily being used for tax-planning purposes by high-earning individuals. We will introduce a new penalty for those who enable the use of a tax avoidance scheme that HMRC later challenges and defeats. These measures, and others set out in the autumn statement document, raise about £2 billion over the forecast period.
There is understandable public concern that the pitch is tilted in favour of large multinational groups, which are able to use cross-border structures to manage their tax liabilities. Following detailed consultation, I can confirm that we will implement our new restriction on tax relief for corporate interest expenses and reform the way relief is provided for historic losses. These measures, scored at Budget 2016, will help to ensure that large businesses will always pay tax in years where they make substantial profits. They will also mean that businesses cannot avoid tax by borrowing excessively in the UK to fund their overseas activities. They take effect in April, and will raise over £5 billion from the largest businesses in the UK.
I said that the tax system must be fair, and that means rewarding those who work hard by helping them to keep more of what they earn. There is one tax reform the Government have pursued since 2010 that has done more than any other to improve the lot of working people: raising the tax-free personal allowance. When we entered Government in 2010, it was £6,475. After six years, it is now £11,000, and will rise to £11,500 in April. As a result, we have more than halved the tax bill of someone with a salary of £15,000 to just £800. That is a massive boost to the incomes of low and middle earners. Since 2010, we have cut income tax for 28 million people and taken 4 million people out of income tax altogether. I can confirm today that, despite the challenging fiscal forecasts, we will deliver on our commitment to raise the allowance to £12,500, and the higher rate threshold to £50,000, by the end of this Parliament. Once that £12,500 has been reached, the personal allowance will rise automatically during the 2020s in line with inflation, rather than the national minimum wage, as currently planned. It will be for the Chancellor to decide from year to year whether more is affordable.
As well as taking millions of ordinary people out of tax, we are the Government who introduced the national living wage and gave a pay rise to over 1 million workers. [Interruption.] Labour Members don’t like it—a Tory Government gave a pay rise to over 1 million of the lowest-paid workers. We are the Government who introduced 15 hours a week of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and we will double that for working families from September. We are the Government whose education reforms have raised standards and expanded opportunity, with 1.4 million more children now in “good” or “outstanding” schools, while the new capital funding I have provided today for grammar schools will help to continue that trend. We are the Government who pledged to invest in our NHS, and we are delivering on that promise by backing the NHS’s “Five Year Forward View” plan for the future with £10 billion of additional funding by the end of 2020-21. But we recognise that more needs to be done to help families make ends meet and to ensure that every household has opportunities to prosper. So today I can announce that the national living wage will increase from £7.20 to £7.50 next April. That is a pay rise worth over £500 a year to a full-time worker.
Creating jobs, lowering taxes and raising wages address directly the concerns of ordinary families, and the revenue-raising measures that I have announced today enable me to go further to help families on low wages. Universal credit is an important reform to our benefits system and is designed to make sure that work always pays. We want to reinforce that position. I have considered very carefully the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and others, and weighed them carefully against the fiscal constraints, and I have concluded that from April we can reduce the universal credit taper rate from 65% to 63%. This is effectively a targeted tax cut that will be worth £700 million a year by 2021-22 for those in work on low incomes. It will increase the incentive to work and encourage progression in work, and it will help 3 million households across our country.
We believe that a market economy is the best way of delivering sustained prosperity for the British people. We will always support a market-led approach, but we will not be afraid to intervene where there is evidence of market failure. We will look carefully over the coming months at the functioning of key markets, including the retail energy market, to make sure they are functioning fairly for all consumers. In the private rental market, letting agents are currently able to charge unregulated fees to tenants. We have seen these fees spiral, despite attempts to regulate them, often to hundreds of pounds. This is wrong. Landlords appoint letting agents and landlords should meet their fees. So I can announce today that we will ban fees to tenants as soon as possible. We will also consult on how best to ban pension cold calling and a wider range of pension scams.
We can also help today those who rely on the income from modest savings to get by. Low interest rates have helped our economy to recover, but they have significantly reduced the interest people can earn on their cash savings, so we will launch a new, market-leading savings bond through NS&I. The detail will be announced at the Budget, but we expect our new investment bond will have an interest rate of around 2.2% gross and a term of three years. Savers will be able to deposit up to £3,000, and we expect around 2 million people to benefit.
The announcements I have made today lower taxes on working people, boost wages, back savers and bear down on bills. In early 2017, we will begin the roll-out of tax-free childcare across Britain, providing a saving of up to £2,000 per child. Once it is rolled out, we pledge to keep it under review to ensure that it is indeed delivering the support that working families need.
There is one further area of household expenditure where the Government can help. The oil price has risen by over 60% since January, and sterling has declined by 15% against the dollar. That means, of course, significant pressure on prices at the pump here in Britain, so today we stand on the side of millions of hard-working people in our country by cancelling the fuel duty rise for the seventh successive year. In total, this saves the average car driver £130 a year and the average van driver £350 a year. This is a tax cut worth £850 million next year and means that the current fuel duty freeze is the longest for 40 years.
I have one further announcement to make. This is my first autumn statement as Chancellor. After careful consideration and detailed discussion with the Prime Minister, I have decided that it will also be my last. I am abolishing the autumn statement. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] No other major economy makes hundreds of tax changes twice a year, and neither should we, so the spring Budget in a few months will be the final spring Budget. Starting in autumn 2017, Britain will have an autumn Budget announcing tax changes well in advance of the start of the tax year. From 2018, there will be a spring statement responding to the forecast—[Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House is in a great state of emotion. Some people are very easily humoured. I am glad they are so humoured, but we must hear the Chancellor.
Mr Hammond
Perhaps they should have read their briefing, Mr Speaker, because they might then have remembered that Parliament has mandated the OBR to produce a report to Parliament twice a year and has mandated the Government to reply. From 2018, therefore, there will be a spring statement responding to the forecast from the OBR but no major fiscal event. If unexpected changes in the economy require it, I will of course reserve the right to announce actions at the spring statement, but I will not make significant changes twice a year just for the sake of it. This change will allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny of Budget measures ahead of their implementation. It is a long-overdue reform to our tax policy-making process and brings the UK into line with best practice recommended by the IMF, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Institute for Government and many others.
The OBR report today confirms the underlying strength and resilience of the British economy. This autumn statement responds to the challenge of building on that strength, while also heeding the warnings in the OBR’s figures, as we begin writing this new chapter in our country’s history. It re-states our commitment to living within our means and sets out our choice to invest in our future. It sends a clear message to the world that Britain is open for business and it provides help to those who need it now. We have made our choices and set our course. We are a great nation, bold in our vision, confident in our strengths and determined in our ambition to build a country that works for everyone. I commend this statement to the House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This morning, we heard the verdict from the trial, following the tragic murder of Jo Cox. That murder robbed this House of a fierce advocate for social justice and a passionate campaigner. Her killing was an attack on democracy itself. Our thoughts are with her family.
Today’s statement places on record the abject failure of the last six wasted years, and offers no hope for the future. The figures speak for themselves. Growth is down; wage growth, down; business investment, down. [Hon. Members: “Sit down.”] The Government’s own deficit targets are failed; the debt target, failed; the welfare cap, failed.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me say now that if Members from either side want to shout out, they should not bother to stand, because they will not be called. I say that to Members on both sides—stop it. It is juvenile, low grade and hugely deprecated by the public, whose support we should be seeking and whom we should try to impress, not to repel.
John McDonnell
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We have heard today that there will be more taxes, more debt and more borrowing. The verdict could not be clearer. The so-called long-term economic plan has failed. As the Treasury’s own leaked paper reveals, the Government knew it had failed before the referendum result was announced. We now face Brexit—the greatest economic challenge of a generation—unprepared and ill equipped. The new Chancellor acknowledged the failure of the economic strategy in October when he promised a reset of economic policy.
Today, we expected a change of direction after those six wasted years. Instead, we have seen further cuts to earnings for those in work through cuts to universal credit, and a living wage increase that is lower than expected under the previous Chancellor. This is a new Conservative leadership with no answers to the challenges facing our country following Brexit, and no vision to secure our future prosperity.
Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, but the chaotic Tory handling of Brexit threatens the future prosperity of this country. The Chancellor must now do the right thing for British workers and businesses. He must insist on full, tariff-free access to the single market. He and the Treasury know that that is what will get the best deal for jobs and prosperity here. It may not be in the Chancellor’s nature, but in the national interest I urge him to stand up to the Prime Minister and the extreme Brexit fanatics in her Cabinet. If he stands up for British businesses and jobs by fighting for single market access, he will have our full support.
After six wasted years, wages are still lower than they were in 2008. Self-employed people are, on average, paid less than they were a generation ago. Six million people are earning less than the living wage. Too many people are having to worry about buying school uniforms, affording a family holiday or even just paying the rent or mortgage.
We have had a month of briefing from the Conservative party on those people who are called “just about managing”—the JAMs. To the Conservative party, these people are just an electoral demographic. To us, they are our friends, our neighbours and the people we represent. Let me tell the House why those people are just managing. It is the result of Tories imposing austerity on an economy that could not bear the strain. We have seen productivity stagnate, but there is nothing in the autumn statement on the scale needed to overturn those six wasted years.
If the Chancellor really wants to make a fairer tax system as well, he can start by bringing back the 50p tax rate for the richest in our country. We have heard familiar hollow rhetoric from the Tories on tax avoidance, when they have cut the resources of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—the very people who collect these taxes. The resources available to HMRC today are 40% less than they were in 2000.
The Chancellor has frozen in-work benefits at a time when food prices are rising and we do not expect wages to keep up. We need an economy that is fundamentally more prosperous and where prosperity is, yes, shared by all. The increases in the national living wage announced today are lower than expected and leave the poorest-paid workers still earning less than they need to live on. So I ask the Chancellor to adopt a real living wage level, as Labour has pledged, and abandon his predecessor’s empty rhetoric.
Regrettably, the Chancellor is still going ahead with some of the cuts to universal credit. Thanks to pressure—I pay tribute to Members of all parties who have campaigned on this issue—he is offering to soften the blow. We do not want the blow softened; we want it lifted altogether. Today’s changes will leave a single parent on average at least £2,300 worse off. These are the very people who are working hard to deliver for their families, and the Government are betraying them.
People with disabilities, who have been put through the ordeal of the discredited work capability assessment and are trying to get themselves ready to return to work—they are “just about managing”—still remain in the Chancellor’s firing line. He is cutting £30 a week from the support that these disabled people receive. In our society, that is scandalous.
Those who are “just about managing” also rely on our public services. They send their children to local schools; they depend on their local hospital; they rely on local council services to clean their streets, tend to their parks and playgrounds and open their libraries. The reality, however, after six wasted years is that our public services are just not managing. Today, the childcare that parents rely on remains underfunded, as the Public Accounts Committee has reported—and it will remain underfunded, even after today’s announcements.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) for the important work they did in bringing the issue of child burial fees to public attention. I ask the Government to do the right thing on child burial fees and reconsider making funding available for families in these desperate circumstances.
Councillors from all political parties are reporting that they are at a tipping point in the provision of social care. The previous Chancellor cut nearly £5 billion from social care, meaning that over 1 million people who need care are not getting it. They are not even “just about managing”, and they got little help today. We call for additional support for social care, because the funding being provided today is only a stop-gap measure. Our social care system will not be secure without long-term funding. Tonight, many elderly people will remain trapped in their homes, isolated and lonely, lacking the care they need because of continuing cuts to social care—and social care cannot be cut without also hitting the NHS.
The supposed £10 billion funding allocated to the NHS is a restatement of an earlier commitment, but the Health Committee described this £10 billion claim as “misleading and incorrect”. The real amount is less than half that claimed. As a result, we now have 3.9 million people on NHS waiting lists—more than ever—and many of those 3.9 million people are waiting in pain, and they got no relief today. Across the country, hospitals face losing their A&E units, their maternity units and their specialist units. This Tory Government are failing patients, as well as failing the dedicated NHS staff who serve us so well. This is the first time that healthcare spending per head has declined since the NHS was created, and I fear there will be a crisis in funding and care over this Christmas. The NHS cares for us, and we should care for the NHS.
Members of this Government have also overseen the biggest real-terms cuts in education for four decades. One pound in every seven has been cut from further education college budgets, and Conservative policy has saddled a generation of students with a lifetime of debt. How can a Government seriously talk about supporting a 21st-century economy when they are planning to pour tens of millions into the failed 20th-century policy of grammar schools, segregating our children at an early age?
As for housing, the Chancellor announced today that he was scrapping “pay to stay” proposals and letting agents’ fees—a U-turn that is a victory for Labour’s campaigns against both the “tenant tax” and letting fees. The Chancellor has spoken before about the dream of home ownership for the young. Nothing that he has announced today is of the scale that is needed to suggest that that will remain anything other than a dream. The hard facts are these. The Government of which the Chancellor was a member built fewer homes than had been built at any point since the 1920s, and there are now a third of a million fewer home owners under the age of 35. Today the Chancellor could have delivered the scale of investment that is required to build the homes that we need and to create a new generation of home ownership. He significantly failed to do so.
Thanks to campaigning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the Wentworth Woodhouse building will be saved. I am grateful for that. The accusation was that a Labour Government had sited an opencast mine near the building and threatened it. That, I believe, was in 1947. I only wish that some of the policies pursued by Tory Governments since the 1950s could be reversed so easily.
The Government’s biggest investment failure is this: the Chancellor has failed to address properly the Government’s most consistent shortcoming. His predecessor cut public investment to the lowest that it had been since the 1990s. Instead of delivering the ambitious investment that our economy needs throughout the country, the Chancellor has failed to recognise the scale of the challenge. He also risks repeating the mistakes from last year, with the national flood resilience plan failing to provide the protection that our communities need.
Just one in five of the projects in the investment pipeline is under construction, and shovel-ready projects worth £82 billion are still being delayed. The infrastructure gap between London and the rest of the country remains unbridged. London was scheduled to receive 12 times as much public investment per head as the north-east of England. The announcement of a £1.1 billion investment in transport is a reannouncement. The Oxford-Cambridge rail link is significantly delayed against Network Rail’s original planned completion date of March 2019. There are no new ideas here, just a promise to deliver what the Government have previously failed to deliver. This is press-release policy-making, not provision. All that we need now is the return of the high-vis jacket.
The “fourth industrial revolution” will not be delivered on delays, old news and reannouncements. The Government have, at last, realised their mistake, and now talk about an industrial strategy—words that Ministers refused even to refer to in the past—but it is not enough to change a few ministerial titles. The Government and the Chancellor need to deliver. We have yet to see the proposed Green Paper on industrial strategy that was promised over the summer.
The same Government who now talk up high-tech investment oversaw a real-terms cut of £1 billion in science funding during the last Parliament. The OECD recommends that developed countries should be spending 3% of GDP on science. On the basis of what we have heard today, the new spending will lift our expenditure from 1.7% of GDP to a mere 1.8%.
It is the same familiar story for business. The Chancellor is continuing the race to the bottom on corporation tax, and, while continuing the cuts in public services, he is cutting taxes for big business. We know that it is not headline tax rates that encourage long-term investment by businesses. Business investment has been revised down every year under this Government. What encourages businesses to invest is the knowledge that they have access to skilled workers, world-class infrastructure and major markets.
Today’s grim economic forecasts reveal the challenge that lies ahead. The Chancellor admitted over the summer that it was time for a change of course. He has now had to abandon the Government’s fiscal charter, with its failed hard surplus target. Labour warned that a hard surplus target lacked the flexibility to adapt to economic circumstances and the capacity to allow investment. The Chancellor’s U-turn today demonstrates just how right we have been over the past year.
Only weeks ago, the Prime Minister offered the hope of change and the Chancellor offered to “reset” economic policy. Today, we have seen the very people whom the Prime Minister promised to champion betrayed. The Chancellor has failed to break with the economic strategy of austerity. The country remains unprepared and ill-equipped to meet the challenges of Brexit and secure Britain’s future as a world-leading economy. I fear that, after all the sacrifices that people have made over the last six years, today’s statement has laid the foundations for more wasted years. Only a Labour Government will deliver on the ambition and vision to rebuild and transform our economy so that no one and no community is left behind.
Mr Hammond
Let me begin by associating myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the Jo Cox trial and sending my deepest condolences to her family and friends, who will be suffering again today.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Privy Council. I only wish that I could have been present at the investiture. I remember the procedure quite well: they give you a little red book to hold. [Laughter.]
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. His central argument appears to be that the deficit is too high and borrowing is too high. That is a bit of a problem, because, as I have understood it, his central proposal for our economy is to borrow more and spend more. Under his rule, Labour would always be borrowing, in good times as well as bad. His analysis of the problem of the last Labour Government is not that they spent too much money, but that they spent too little. Indeed, his rule has remarkable similarities to Gordon Brown’s “golden rule”, and we all know where that got us. His big idea is to spend an extra £500 billion, without any notion of how he would pay for it.
The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the industrial strategy. I am not sure that I welcome his welcome, but I warn him not to welcome it too quickly, because it will not look anything like an industrial strategy that would come out of his office. What he has heard about today is a responsible set of decisions, such as the decision to borrow £23 billion of tightly targeted investment while paying for every single penny of every other commitment that has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about Brexit, and attacked us over the way in which we are handling the Brexit process. I honestly do not know whether he has ever been involved in a negotiation—I suspect not—but I invite him to look across the continent for a moment and note the admirable discipline that our negotiating counterparts are displaying in their messages, revealing nothing as they prepare to go into this negotiation with us. My advice is this: if we want to secure the best possible deal for Britain, we must keep our cards appropriately close to our chest.
The right hon. Gentleman may have heard “cuts in people’s incomes” in my announcement about universal credit. Let me explain to him how this works. When we cut the taper from 65% to 63%, we allow people to keep an extra 2% of the income they are earning. I would have thought he welcomed that.
This is all about making tough decisions, and I am very happy to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, but I just wish he would be honest enough to accept that we cannot shower money everywhere, proposing to spend money on everything, without having to raise that money, either by taxes on ordinary people or by cutting spending elsewhere. It is simply no good to keep on pretending that we can do that just by taxing the rich. The top 1% of people in this country already contribute 27% of income tax paid, and unfortunately there are just not enough of them to be able to finance all the right hon. Gentleman’s ambitions.
The right hon. Gentleman said he was disappointed by the announcement on the national living wage. I do not remember—perhaps one of my hon. Friends can remind me—the level of the national living wage during the 13 years of Labour’s Government. He might note that the level I have announced today is precisely the level recommended by the Low Pay Commission, the body set up to pronounce on these things.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman would also be honest when he talks about the work-related activity group in the employment and support arrangements. This applies to new claims only, as he very well knows, so nobody is going to have £29 a week taken away from them however many times he says it. He also knows that it is not a stand-alone measure; it is part of a package. The money saved is being reinvested in a £330 million package to get these people into work, with targeted support to help them to be ready for work.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about house building starts. House building starts were 45% down under the last Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have spread division and disunity through the Labour party, and that is exactly what they would spread through the country if they ever—God forbid—got into government. The right hon. Gentleman says there are no new ideas; I have to say that he needs to check the opinion polling, because that is not quite what public opinion believes. Instead of carping and opposing every measure we propose, why doesn’t he roll up his sleeves and support us in the hard work of building an economy that works for everyone?
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on reverting to the extremely sensible practice of having only one Budget a year, which Gordon Brown abandoned in order to try to buy votes twice a year, with disastrous consequences. I also congratulate him on easing the taper on tax credit, because it is having distorting effects on the labour market at the moment, for example by discouraging part-time workers from working extra hours. I particularly thank him for the money he has spent on the very valuable work rehabilitating the disabled at Stanford Hall in my constituency.
With those notable exceptions, will the Chancellor reassure me he will resist political pressures of all kinds over the coming years to move away from the very sensible fiscal discipline he has set out, because the major risk to his period of office would come—and it would affect every section of our society, including the JAMs that the media have discovered—if he were unable to avoid or mitigate the risk of recession, which global uncertainty undoubtedly poses to us in the real world?
Finally, will he confirm that, wherever he holds his cards, he will continue, inside the Government if necessary, to spell out economic reality and the long-term benefits to this country, if he wants to develop a modern, competitive economy, of retaining access to our most important market, in Europe, by retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union, and that no amount of short-term political pressure will allow him to be deflected from that?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am delighted that we have been able to lower the taper rate of universal credit, because of course it is absolutely in line with our principle that we should be supporting and encouraging people into work. He says the taper rate discourages people, but it is of course a much lower rate of withdrawal than under the old tax credit system it replaces.
Let me reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remain absolutely committed to the sound Tory principle that a country has to live within its means. Of course we have to deal with the realities the world throws at us, and that is why today I have adopted, as an interim measure for the remainder of this Parliament, a cyclically adjusted target which will always allow us to respond to any downturn that occurs. However, I certainly understand the importance of economic reality, and I also understand, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the extreme desirability of achieving the very best access to markets in Europe for those who produce our goods and services.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
First, may I associate myself with the words of the shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor on the late Jo Cox? May I also thank the Chancellor for what he said about the Tay cities deal? I note that what he said was slightly different from the words in the Red Book, so we will take him at face value from the Dispatch Box. In his attempt to clamp down on evasion, it was disappointing that no reference was made to Scottish limited partnerships. One would have thought that there would be more, too, in terms of fairness overall, and a reference to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign and the unfairness for those women.
The Chancellor gave us plenty of information today, but with no more than a glib reference to being match fit at the beginning and a bit of deflection there was very little on the elephant in the room, which is Brexit. It is not as if the Treasury does not know what the consequences of it will be; its own assessment tells us that tax yields could be down by £66 billion a year after 15 years and GDP down perhaps by 9.5% —a figure confirmed by the London School of Economics—as a result of reduced trade lowering productivity. That amounts to some £6,500 per year per household. So where was the plan to ensure that there is no hard Brexit and to maintain access to the single market? Where was the plan to mitigate the losses in tax yield and GDP? Although the Chancellor said a considerable amount about capital investment and research and development—and I welcome some of it up to a point—where was the fully developed scheme actually to boost productivity?
We do not go into this next period from a position of strength. As the Chancellor knows, UK GDP is already nearly 20% lower than it would have been had we achieved even a 2% trend growth rate since 2008. Our argument is that the austerity of this Government and the previous Government sucked consumption out of the economy, weakening recovery. This Government are set to repeat the error. Growth barely reaches 2% for the forecast period, and although the Chancellor sensibly did not put a date on it, he is still targeting a surplus in the economy, perhaps again before recovery has been secured.
I am glad the Chancellor has changed the fiscal charter, because the previous permanent surplus rule, taking £10 billion a year more out than required to run a balanced economy and cutting £50 billion a year more than required to run a balanced current budget, left us with some terrible consequences. As discretionary consolidation, cuts and tax rises took place, the ratio of cuts to tax rises also increased, placing the burden of austerity and an arbitrary fiscal target on the back of the poor. That has made the poorest decile 5% worse off and the richest 10% almost entirely better off. The Government have clearly worked out something, and I welcome the move on the taper, but let us be clear: at 2p in the pound, on the minimum wage that is 14p an hour.
It is not a king’s ransom and it will not cure poverty. The squeeze has not been lifted from the poor, and the screw of the welfare cap has not been turned off; this has simply made a brutal regime slightly less brutal.
I am glad that the Chancellor mentioned the actions of the Bank of England. Our party very much welcomes what the Governor has done. He has introduced an increase in quantitative easing and £60 billion of extra Government bond purchases, made £10 billion available for corporate bond purchases, set a 0.25% base rate and enabled additional term funding to encourage more and cheaper long-term lending from the banks. However, there has been a more or less complete absence of a fiscal policy stimulus to match the incredible monetary policy activism of the central bank.
The key part of today’s autumn statement—I am pleased to hear that this is the last one; it is my 25th Budget, autumn statement or pre-Budget statement—was the increase in total managed expenditure, but like, for like, it amounts to 1.5% of total managed expenditure over the forecast period from 2015-16 to 2020-21. It is to be welcomed, and it certainly represents a break from the recent past, but it can in no way be described as the sort of fiscal stimulus required to match the monetary policy discipline of the central bank.
The Chancellor talked about an increase in capital investment, which I very much welcome. He also talked about an increase in funding for research and development. However, given the fact that the description of research and development has changed in the Green Book, as has the description of the UK Trade & Investment funding—he said that there would be a doubling of some aspects of export support—it is hard to tell precisely what the impact of some of those measures will be. Will he tell us what the total increase in cash and percentage terms of this vital export support will be? Will he also tell us what the overall increase in research and development funding will be across the piece? How does he intend to deploy the £23 billion of what he described as capital investment?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure whether that was a “thank you” or not. I might have to consult my hon. Friends about that. I think it might have been—
Mr Hammond
Oh, it was not. What we have announced today is a significant increase in capital investment, which includes research and development under the Office for National Statistics definition, and Scotland will get £800 million of that. Research and development is not Barnettised, so the increase will be spread across the whole of the UK, but the infrastructure element will be Barnettised and Scotland will get £800 million. I would point out to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) that Scotland’s economic performance needs attention, and that its productivity needs addressing. I am sure that families and businesses across Scotland will hope that he or one of his colleagues can confirm that the Scottish Government will use this additional funding—in the spirit in which it is being raised for the rest of the United Kingdom—to invest in raising the productivity performance of the Scottish economy. I would very much welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about details of the productivity message. I can assure him that there is no lack of enthusiasm in this Government for tackling the productivity challenge. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, the Treasury and other Departments are involved in a process that will lead to a Green Paper that will allow us to consult extensively with business and other outside bodies before we firm up exactly how to deliver the strategy. What the House has seen today is £23 billion of additional investment, alongside the £150 billion that we have already committed to investing in economic infrastructure over the period, which will form the backbone for that policy and its delivery.
The hon. Gentleman knows very well—although he probably would not admit it—that survey after survey has shown that the biggest drag on growth and business investment in Scotland is the continuing threat of a second referendum.
Mr Hammond
The right hon. Gentleman needs to go back and look at the polling data. The concern about a second Scottish independence referendum is bigger than any concerns about possible Brexit arrangements.
In response to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee East, I am publishing a distributional analysis—I believe that it is available in the Vote Office now—of the measures that have been announced today and, cumulatively, of the measures that have been announced throughout this Parliament. It will not show the outcome that he suggested, so perhaps he would like to look at it and we can no doubt have another exchange on this at Treasury questions.
The overall package of measures announced today represents a fiscal loosening of around £23 billion. I acknowledge that that is a reduction of a planned fiscal tightening, but of course there has to be a fiscal tightening over time because we are moving towards living within our means, with a balanced budget in the next Parliament, and we are not going to be deflected from that intention. Finally, just to clear up the confusion, UKTI’s budget is now rolled into the budget of the Department for International Trade. What I announced in my statement was that the risk capacity of UK Export Finance will be doubled so that it can provide finance to enable exporters from all over the UK to sell their goods abroad on credit.
Mr George Osborne (Tatton) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and successor on his strong statement and assured delivery. I particularly welcome the additional support for the northern powerhouse. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has given us a sober assessment of the economic and borrowing challenges that Britain faces, and the Chancellor is right to keep his powder dry. However, he is also right to adhere to the principles that we control current spending, that we ensure that work pays and make the welfare and tax reforms necessary to deliver that, that we make Britain the best place to attract business and that we have the freest possible trade with our key export markets. I support all the things that he is doing to deliver on those principles.
Mr Hammond
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to say that those principles will guide the actions of this Government—as they should guide the actions of any sensible Government —as we try to future-proof our economy in a time of extraordinary political and technological change. We are facing a period of 20 or 30 years in which the way we work, the way we live and the way we do business will change fundamentally, and unless we invest now in our infrastructure, our science and technology base and our innovation capability, we risk being left behind. That would not deliver the economy and the country that works for everyone that we are committed to.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted the fiscal rules that his predecessor described as the single biggest risk to economic recovery. They are the ones that we proposed in 2015. I want to ask him about Brexit. He said at the Tory party conference that the British people did not vote to become poorer. However, on page 19 of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report, we see that £58 billion of the worsening in the public finances is due to the Brexit decision. Is this not a salutary warning to us about the decisions that we will take over the coming months and years? Is it not also a strong argument for us to remain as close as possible to our largest trading area, the single market, and inside rather than outside the customs union?
Mr Hammond
The Prime Minister has said many times—I shall undoubtedly repeat this many times today—that it remains our objective to try to get the closest possible trading arrangement with the European Union and the greatest possible access for our goods and services to be sold into European markets after we leave the European Union. In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I think we have to disaggregate two effects. There is of course going to be a period of uncertainty as we go through the process of exiting the European Union, and that has had a dampening effect on business investment, as the OBR has identified. However, we have to rise to the challenge of getting ourselves match-fit to seize the opportunities that this country will have after we complete that process, and I would urge him to think about that longer-term challenge as well as the short-term issues.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on delivering a crucial statement for the country. It was a Budget in all but name, and I strongly support his decision to make it the first of many autumn Budgets, for which a number of us on the Treasury Committee have been pressing for a while.
The statement will provide reassurance and certainty for the whole country. Given that the education sector creates export earnings of £20 billion—about the same as the car manufacturing sector—will the Chancellor soon be able to provide our colleges and universities with the certainty and reassurance they need that foreign students will not be caught by the 100,000 migration target?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee for his remarks and for the Committee’s work on a single fiscal event—it is much appreciated and the right way for us to go. On his specific question, students are included, as he knows, in the 100,000 or tens of thousands target, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at how best to manage student flows in the interests of what, as he says, is an important industry in this country.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
A few months ago, the Foreign Secretary promised the general public that we would by now have an extra £350 million a week for the national health service. Strangely, however, the Chancellor has just announced that growth is falling and business investment is collapsing and that there will be an extra £110 billion of borrowing over the forecast period when compared with March. I do not see any of his leave-campaigner colleagues on the Front Bench, but has he received an apology yet from the Foreign Secretary or any of them?
Mr Hammond
I am not responsible for remarks that may or may not have been made during political campaigns. The British people made a decision to leave the European Union, and we must respect that decision. If we are to make a success of this process and if we are going to ensure the success of the British economy in the future, we must move on and not repeat this sterile debate over and over again. We must focus our attention on building an economy that is match-fit for the future and that will enable us to deliver high living standards as we make our way in the world.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As someone who is much more optimistic about the UK economy’s prospects under the Chancellor’s stewardship than the OBR usually is, I welcome the increased OBR forecast for this year—a faster rate of growth than in its pre-vote forecast. I also welcome its recognition that there will be no post-vote winter recession, as was forecast by some. Does the Chancellor agree that the OBR is probably still quite wrong about 2017? Its forecast is too low, its borrowing forecast is far too high, and we will get good access to the single market once we are out of the EU.
Mr Hammond
I hope that my right hon. Friend is right on that last point, which will of course be our objective. I am grateful to him for his implicit confidence in my stewardship. I am well aware of his views, which are, as always, long standing and utterly consistent. However, it is not my job to opine on the report that the OBR has made by statute to Parliament; it is my job to respond to it. That is what I have done today. Obviously, economic forecasting is not a precise science, and I absolutely recognise, as would the OBR, that individual Members will have their own views on the likely future trajectory of our economy. It is probably worth mentioning that the OBR specifically says in its report that there is an unusually high degree of uncertainty in its forecasts because of the unusual circumstances.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In a long statement, we had no mention of the national health service. After the first six months of this year, the deficit is £648 million for trusts alone, with a year-end deficit forecast of £669 million. Given the extraordinary measures to which the Department of Health had to go to balance its budget in the last financial year and given those projections, what is the Chancellor doing to ensure that our national health service has a sustainable future?
Mr Hammond
I might be a novice at autumn statements, but I am not such a rookie that I did not mention the NHS, so I suggest that the hon. Lady checks Hansard, where she will find that I definitely did. She talks about an aggregate trust deficit of £648 million that was projected at a point that is four months out from the end of the fiscal year. That is in the context of a budget of £110 billion in an NHS that holds a contingency reserve at the centre. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is well aware of such pressures, which are not particularly unusual. They are being managed inside the NHS, and I am of course keeping and will continue to keep a close eye on them with the Health Secretary.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a wide range of measures—short term, medium term and long term—that will undoubtedly turbocharge our economy and give it the boost it needs as we face the realities of Brexit. Does he agree that it has never been more important for British business to be at the heart of local enterprise partnerships, great ideas such as the midlands engine, and all the infrastructure plans? Such projects should be driven by British business, not politicians.
Mr Hammond
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful for her comments. I passionately believe that business should be engaged at the heart of this process—that is the right way to do it—and local enterprise partnerships and area-specific project organisations are a good innovation for delivering it. However, this is also part of meeting the challenge of regional imbalance, which as I said earlier is not just a social problem, but an economic problem. When we look at our productivity gap when compared with other advanced economies, we should logically look for the things in our country that are different from those in our comparators. The gap between our capital city and our other cities and regions is one of the defining features of the UK economy. By working with businesses from across the country and the regions, in particular by promoting our regional cities, we can at last start to address the problem.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The north of England is crying out for a plan for investment in rail, and people will be left asking today, “Where is it?” It is also crying out for investment in social care. It is quite frankly unbelievable that the Chancellor could find no place to mention it today. Six years of cuts to social care have left a record number of older people trapped in hospital and the NHS on the brink. With a dangerous winter now facing us, can he say a little more about how he came to the judgment that new grammar schools are a higher spending priority than the funding of care for older people?
Mr Hammond
I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman—a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury—is not actually able to distinguish between capital and resource, because the funding that we are talking about for grammar schools is capital spending. I said in the course of my statement that the Department for Transport will continue the discussions on northern powerhouse rail with Transport for the North and will make announcements in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked specifically about social care. Opposition Members are fond of talking about cuts to social care budgets, but local authorities have to manage their budgets as they think best. They have to manage the envelope of resource that they are given. We have created a better care fund that will be delivering £1.5 billion a year into social care by the end of this Parliament. We have allowed local authorities to raise a social care precept, which will be delivering another £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. That is £3.5 billion a year of additional funding into the social care system. I accept that there is an issue that local authorities are raising—we have heard what they are saying—about profiling and how this large amount of additional money ramps up. My right hon. Friends the Health Secretary and the Communities and Local Government Secretary are extremely aware of the issue and I am discussing it with them.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Care Quality Commission has warned that social care is at a tipping point and vulnerable people across the country are being left without the care and support that they need, which is adding hugely to costs for the NHS. I am disappointed that the better care fund has not yet been brought forward, but encouraged to hear that that is actively under discussion. Will the Chancellor confirm that we should try to get away from this divisive debate in the House about how we are going to fund our health and social care, and that all parties should work together for a new, sustainable, long-term settlement?
Mr Hammond
I am all in favour of discussing these big strategic questions in a grown-up way, trying to build a consensus across the House, but I see little interest from Opposition Members in doing that. We have made a commitment of £10 billion of additional funding for the NHS over this Parliament—[Interruption.] Yes, we have. It is £10 billion of additional funding by the end of this Parliament. A senior management team in the NHS has drawn up a plan, set the budget and asked for the money. It has been given the money and I think we should allow it to show what it can do.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
The Chancellor’s autumn statement suggests yet more public borrowing, with total public debt due to increase to £1.6 trillion in the new year and £1.9 trillion by 2020, when it will be four times what it was in 2005. Rather than being a reflection on Brexit, is not the accumulation of these unsustainable levels of public debt due to his predecessor’s failure to match words with deeds and get a grip on public spending?
Mr Hammond
No. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will not have had a chance to read the report, but when he does so, he will see that the big drivers of debt are: the deteriorating forecast for growth, which of course has a big impact; the structural change that appears to be taking place in the relationship between a given level of GDP and tax receipts—I mentioned in my statement that we will have to address that—and the measures that the Bank of England took, which have a direct impact on public debt, but only in the short term, because they do unwind over the course of a few years.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s significant commitment to British science today, regarding both research and commercialisation. As he moves towards his next Budget, may I urge him to look carefully at removing many of the regulatory barriers and at providing greater tax incentives for individuals to invest in science and technology start-ups so that we can start to build a true enterprise culture in which everybody participates?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend has been kind enough to come to see me over the past few weeks to make some suggestions in this area. I did announce in my statement that the Treasury will conduct a review of the availability of patient capital in this country, and I include in that genuine individual investment in start-up businesses and how we make sure that that is incentivised to stay in for the long haul. I thank him for his input and we will look at this further.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
May I start by associating myself with the comments made by the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor about the verdict in the Jo Cox trial? I hope that the whole-life sentence for Jo’s murderer can at least give some comfort to her family at this incredibly difficult time, and will also enable us to remember Jo for the way she lived, rather than the way she was murdered.
May I ask the Chancellor about the changes to universal credit that he announced today? The taper rate will now be 63p in the pound, which means that for every additional pound earned, the recipient of universal credit will lose 63p. That marginal tax rate is three times higher than the basic tax rate. Does he honestly think that sufficiently rewards work and encourages people to take on those extra hours that we all want them to do?
Mr Hammond
Again, I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s remarks. I am sure that she is right that the entirely sensible sentence that has been handed down will be a source of some comfort to the family.
The hon. Lady asks whether the taper rate is a disincentive or an incentive to work. Of course the lower the taper rate, the greater the incentive to work—I readily recognise that. I said in my statement that I had listened carefully to representations about doing something in this area and balanced those against my judgment about our fiscal capacity. I have funded every single spending commitment made today. If we had gone further than 63%, we would have had to raise more money somewhere else, and I judged that at the present time that was not the right thing to do. I also gently remind her that 65%, never mind 63%, is a lot lower than a marginal withdrawal rate of 90%, which was what many people were facing under the tax credits system.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
May I welcome the steps that the Chancellor has taken to tackle some of the issues facing rural businesses, particularly the extension of rural rate relief and of fibre broadband? I particularly thank him for the £1.4 million that will be going to the Alder centre, which will help to build a new building for the provision of counselling services across the north-west to bereaved parents. I know that the trustees are absolutely delighted.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I am delighted that, even in these difficult fiscal times, we are able to make these investments, which can be life-changing in local areas.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
So that there can be no doubt, may I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive will have £250 million of additional capital spending, as well as the commitment to reduce corporation tax, which should lower the bill for the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland without damaging our ability to compete with the Republic? The Chancellor says that growth is still damagingly imbalanced across the United Kingdom. If the Northern Ireland Executive make sensible proposals of further measures to address that issue, will he pay attention and respond to those? Does he agree that his acceptance of the lower forecast of growth for the UK in the long term, despite the fact that it contradicts totally the short-term forecasts, can be self-fulfilling and can damage places such as Northern Ireland disproportionately when compared with other parts of the UK?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure that receiving the OBR report constitutes an acceptance of anything; the report is the report and we have to respond to it. The hon. Gentleman asks about the imbalance in growth; of course that is a problem, and increasing economic growth in Northern Ireland is a high priority. Wages and living standards are lower in Northern Ireland than we would like, and the only way to address that is to improve productivity, increase the size of the private sector and get more investment into Northern Ireland so that growth rates are increased. Obviously I will respond to any proposals that come from the Northern Ireland Executive. I cannot promise him how I will respond to them, but I can promise him that I will respond.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The extra investment in building affordable homes and infrastructure is excellent news. Does the Chancellor agree that cheaper homes are one of the most important ways of raising living standards for everyone and improving economic productivity? Will he therefore also support reported moves to increase the supply of urban house-building sites by allowing owners to build up, not out, to the height of other buildings in the same block without planning permission?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right to say that making sure that housing is affordable is not only a key social priority, but a key economic priority. As I said in my statement, it is clear that the unaffordability of housing, certainly in many areas of the country, has become a drag on productivity, economic growth and investment. Investment in housing not only advantages the economy, but directly helps families, so I am pleased that we have been able to do something on that front today. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will be bringing forward a housing White Paper in due course and he will address the longer-term strategic problems, one of which is the subject of the point that my hon. Friend has made.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), may I point out that there is not one mention in the 72-page autumn statement document of the words “NHS”, “social care”, “mental health” and “public health”? The Chancellor cannot ignore the fact that our health and social care services are in crisis and face massive deficits. Surely the many economists in his Department will have told him that it is economically illiterate to ignore the massive decrease in people receiving social care in the community, and the cuts to public health and NHS staff training. Why was the NHS missing from his autumn statement?
Mr Hammond
We have been round this loop before. We are putting £10 billion a year more into the national health service by the end of this Parliament. We are delivering exactly what the senior management of the national health service asked for, and we will work with them to ensure that it is effective, because the money has to be spent and delivered effectively. I keep in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He is working very closely with NHS management. I know that it is tempting for Opposition Members to paint everything as a crisis or to talk of looming chaos, but that is not the case. We have a programme for investment in the NHS. It is being delivered and we will keep a close eye on the way it is being delivered.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement and the autumn statement. I am particularly pleased to welcome the extra £2 billion for research and development that was announced earlier this week—it is absolutely pivotal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will help to underpin our leadership in life sciences, which is a key sector for success in the northern powerhouse?
Mr Hammond
I completely agree. To be clear, by the end of the Parliament, an additional £2 billion a year will go into research and development. My hon. Friend is right that life sciences and synthetic biology are an area in which the UK has gained a really significant lead in a disruptive area of technology that will shape the future of our economy and the economy of the world. There are three or four such areas in which we really have to invest now to ensure that we get the critical footprint that will allow us to be leaders in this fourth industrial revolution, just as we were in the first industrial revolution.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I welcome those elements of this statement that are positive? I am talking about the spending for infrastructure, especially in broadband and mobile phone signals, the reduction in fuel duty and the changes to universal credit. They are all steps in the right direction, but we wanted extra cash to be given to the NHS and social care, where it is needed, because as winter comes on we risk the problems becoming acute. I understand the difficulties that face the Chancellor today. He has a £122 billion black hole as a result of Brexit. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, instead of using the NHS as a political football, will he work with people of all parties and none to identify where that money can be found because, frankly, the NHS is too important to be treated like this?
Mr Hammond
First, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the figures in a little more detail. The £122 billion that he quotes runs over a fifth year. It includes the £23 billion of discretionary additional commitments that I have made today, as well as more than £20 billion of baseline adjustments due to previous policy changes around welfare benefits and classification changes made by the ONS. He therefore really needs to look at the figures.
On the NHS, as I have said already, there are trust deficits building up across the country. At the moment, they are manageable within the context of the NHS’s own internal cash management system, but we will of course keep a close eye on them. We take the view that the NHS has asked for financing of a specific and defined plan. We have provided that financing. We now need to challenge NHS managers who have asked for that money to deliver the outcomes that they promised. We will watch very closely and stick close by as they do.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first and last autumn statement. In particular, I warmly welcome the support for infrastructure. With regard to the investment for 140,000 new houses, may I ask him to consider the suggestion from the National Housing Federation that those affordable houses are built tenure-free so that they might be delivered more quickly?
Mr Philip Hammond
I did say in the statement—my hon. Friend might have missed it—that we will relax the restrictions on tenure that are normally attached to affordable housing grant funding so that affordable housing providers can build with the mix of tenures that is right for the particular market in which they are operating. That will allow housing to be built more quickly, and housing need to be met more quickly.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister expressed outrage in her conference speech at the fact that two thirds of energy bill payers are paying over the odds on the standard variable tariff. That percentage has been confirmed by the Competition and Markets Authority. I first spoke about this five years ago, so it was disappointing that the problem was not mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech today. We should have a protective tariff and a cap for those on the standard variable rate. I understand that there are meetings across Whitehall to discuss that idea. Will he confirm or deny the rumours that a protective tariff, or a default tariff, is under discussion?
Mr Hammond
I will not confirm or deny what discussions are going on across Whitehall. I did say—I fully understand that the right hon. Lady might have missed it in the depths of the statement—that we are setting up a review of markets, including the retail energy market, to ensure that they are operating fairly for consumers. Where we find that they are not, we will make proposals and take action.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the autumn statement. There is always a question on the beer industry, and here it is. Beer is taxed at three different levels depending on its alcohol by volume. The lowest rate is for beers with an ABV of 1.2% to 2.8% to try to attract consumers to less alcoholic beers. Will the Chancellor meet me, as president of the all-party beer group, to discuss the upper level, and perhaps raising it to 3.5%, with a view to attracting people away from those heavier alcoholic beers to lower-alcohol beers?
Mr Speaker
That was a splendidly pithy answer, but questions are becoming rather long. There are still nearly 50 Members seeking to contribute, and I am keen to accommodate them, but I can do so only if people can—to put it bluntly—abandon the preamble and get on with the pithy, preferably single-sentence, inquiry. I am sure that we can led in this by Caroline Lucas.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Disappointingly, this Chancellor has joined his predecessor in failing to mention the words “climate change” even just once anywhere in the statement. That is in the year that is set to be the hottest on record, when parts of the country are under floodwater. Can he justify continued handouts to the oil and gas sector when there is no assurance of support for clean energy post-2020, no reversal of the critical solar tax hike, and nothing on keeping homes warm this winter?
Mr Hammond
If the hon. Lady looks carefully at the statement, she will see that I did announce significant additional funding to pursue ultra-low emission vehicles. That is an area in which the UK is already a technology leader. I have also announced today that, from next April, there will be 100% first-year allowances on all electric charging infrastructure. We know that the biggest deterrent to moving to electric vehicles is the fear of being unable to charge them. Getting a widespread charging network rolled out will allow us to meet our ambition to electrify the fleet.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Innovation and the condition of working people have always been priorities of the Conservative party. In that vein, I particularly welcome the fiscal changes in the autumn statement, especially regarding fuel duty, tax allowances and the national living wage, for which I campaigned for many years. May I just take the Chancellor back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)? Through the dispersal of public money for affordable housing, would it be possible to break the monopoly of housing associations and local authorities? In mixed tenure sites, could we bring in local providers of affordable housing to deliver the homes that we all need?
Mr Hammond
This is not absolutely my area of expertise, but my understanding was that there already are opportunities for other providers to deliver affordable housing and to receive grant support to do so. I will look into that matter and, if I am wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend accordingly.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Like many Members, I welcome the £23 billion of infrastructure spending. Some 1% of people who currently work in the construction industry are women. Can the Chancellor tell me how many women’s jobs will be created by the £23 billion? Does he think that the tax that we women pay should sometimes pay for our own prosperity?
Mr Hammond
I am afraid to tell the hon. Lady that I do not have a ready answer for her on precisely how many women’s jobs will be created, but I do know that we have more women in work than ever before in this country and that our female participation rates are approaching the levels of the very highest rates in Scandinavian countries. I also know, because it is an area of interest to me, that more women are going into what one might describe as traditionally male preserves—engineering and construction—than ever before. That is a trend we should welcome enormously and encourage further.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I just want to say, “Thank you.” An awful lot of R and D funding will help my constituency. Scientific businesses in South Cambridgeshire have been worried since Brexit, so I thank my right hon. Friend for that. East-west rail links and road links will help us to spread that prosperity. Overall, I thank him for the money on universal credit. That was a difficult decision. It is not everything that we wanted, but I very much welcome the money that he put aside for universal credit, and I thank him.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Chancellor quite rightly noted at the beginning of his statement that one of the big challenges that he faces is the gross wealth inequality in the British state—a task that will be made harder with the loss of EU structural funds—so is it his intention in future statements to announce a UK convergence fund to replace the lost EU regional money?
Mr Hammond
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern. He will know that I have made two statements since becoming Chancellor seeking to reassure businesses, universities and others who apply for EU grant funding that, where they are successful in such applications, however long the funding runs on, we will underwrite it, so if Brussels does not foot the bill, the Treasury will. But he is absolutely right: we will have to put in place alternative arrangements for the period after we leave the EU. We will have to have a discussion with the devolved Administrations about how that works—between Whitehall and the devolved administrations—and once we get into the negotiation with the EU, we can start to see the direction of travel. I think that it will then be appropriate to have this discussion, but I do recognise the concern.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
As the Chancellor pointed out, we have a major productivity issue to address. I look forward to the Green Paper and the benefits of the £23 billion of targeted investment, but may I congratulate him on making that £23 billion-worth of investment within a fiscal framework that is reliable, sustainable and will continue to bring down the record deficit that this Government inherited from Labour?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we have embarked on the right course of action to protect our economy for the future and to ensure that it can take full advantage of the opportunities that will be available to it.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the reference to the northern powerhouse and Transport for the North—with details to follow—but will the Chancellor tell us whether there is any more funding, so that we can invest in better transport across the north?
Mr Hammond
I welcome the question from a former Transport Committee Chairman—[Hon. Members: “She still is!”] All right. I welcome the question even more. If I remember rightly, she was the Chairman when I was a member of the Select Committee, so she probably gets the prize for longevity.
I have deliberately chosen not to read out great, long lists of specific projects and allocations of funding, but rather to create a framework, and what I said in the statement—I will repeat it now—is that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will make a series of announcements about the detailed allocations over the coming weeks.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
May I ask the Chancellor to urge the Transport Secretary to spend some of the £1.1 billion on a new motorway junction between junctions 25 and 26 on the M1, which would undoubtedly improve growth and productivity in my constituency?
Mr Hammond
One of my thoughts in deciding not to announce all the allocations personally was that I would avoid the lobbying for individual projects. I had not realised that I would be invited to act as a conduit to the Transport Secretary, but in this case and because it is my hon. Friend, I will pass on her request.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I must advise the House that I have noticed a growing split within the Chamber between the glowerers and the smilers—Members deploying different techniques in a bid to be called. Some have very beatific smiles and others—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Affordable house building last year fell to its lowest level since 1991. In my borough, Wandsworth, the Conservative council approved the building of over 10,000 homes at Battersea power station and Nine Elms, 13% of which were deemed affordable. However, the cheapest home there is a studio flat costing £400,000. These are not genuinely affordable homes for local residents; they are used as gold bricks for overseas developers. Can the Chancellor tell me today what is an affordable home?
Mr Hammond
There are two points here. We have, of course, a definition of affordable housing, which we use in statutory terms, but there is a much broader consensus in the House that we need to make all housing across the UK more affordable, including housing that people buy in the marketplace. To do that, we have to address fundamentally some of the challenges with land supply, particularly in London and other high-demand areas. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary will introduce a housing White Paper, which will address these more strategic issues.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
There is much to be welcomed in the Chancellor’s statement, particularly the warm words about the strength of our science and technology endeavours, especially in the light of the recent Science and Technology Committee report that called for a rise in spending on R and D to 3% of GDP. Obviously, the extra £2 billion is a helpful step in that direction, but to realise the potential and deliver on those ambitions, we need to attract the best talents here to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend work with colleagues across the Government not only to reassure scientists and researchers who are already here, but to come up with a system as soon as possible to attract the best people into the UK?
Mr Hammond
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. Of course, the £2 billion a year referred to is just public investment in R and D. Most investment in R and D in this country is done by the private sector. As the Prime Minister said in her speech to the CBI on Monday, we are committed to looking at the R and D tax credit system to make sure that the UK is the most attractive place for an innovative company to do its research, development and innovation.
On immigration, I absolutely recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes. Many companies that choose to locate in the UK depend on being able to bring people with high skills into the UK to work in their businesses. I have said before and I am happy to say again today that, although it is our clear intention to introduce controls on migration into the UK from the European Union, I cannot conceive of any circumstances where we would use those controls to strangle investment in our businesses by not allowing high-skilled, high-paid individuals to be transferred here to work in them.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The most alarming number in the OBR forecast is the 13% drop in forecast business investment, and the Chancellor said it himself: the big problem is uncertainty. The OBR says rather plaintively:
“we asked the Government for ‘a formal statement of policy as regard its desired trade regime…as a basis for our projections’”
but they left us
“little the wiser.”
The Chancellor had a real opportunity today to tackle this uncertainty, which is the basic problem, by setting out the objectives for the Brexit negotiations to keep us with access to the single market and in the customs union. Why did he not do so?
Mr Hammond
I did not, because to do so would be to give away our negotiating cards in what will be a very complex negotiation. With respect to the hon. Lady, even if I or the Prime Minister set out precisely our objectives, our tactics and our strategy for the negotiations, that will not remove the uncertainty because the outcome will depend on the negotiation itself. As the Prime Minister has said, a negotiation is a process of give and take between the parties to get to a mutually acceptable outcome, and that is what will be embarked upon.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I congratulate the Chancellor on his excellent statement? I draw his attention to page 96 of the OBR report, which sets out the assumptions in relation to Brexit. It seems to me that there are two problems with those assumptions. First, they assume that we will apply tariffs on the same basis as we do inside the European Union, which the Chancellor will know he will be able to remove. Secondly, they are particularly gloomy on the prospects for financial services. Might we be able to take a slightly more optimistic tone and, with the freedoms that we have outside the customs union and the single market, be able to solve the productivity problem?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend will know, the OBR is mandated to report by Parliament and I am mandated to respond on behalf of the Government to the OBR’s findings. It is an independent body. It does receive representations, and I suggest that my hon. Friend makes his concerns known to the OBR.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
From the abundance of smiling Scottish nationalist countenances, I choose Mr George Kerevan.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I congratulate the Chancellor on abolishing the autumn statement and the spring Budget, and introducing a spring statement and an autumn Budget. I trust that that is not his definition of productivity. The OBR central forecast suggests that after 2019 there will be a precipitate fall in the contribution by business investment to GDP growth. In addition, there will be a negative contribution from trade. Does that not suggest that when Britain leaves the single market—if we are taken out of the single market—the only thing between a recession and growth will be public expenditure and an overheated housing market?
Mr Hammond
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I recognise that the fact that we have to respond to the OBR report in the spring can easily be caricatured as swapping an autumn statement and a spring Budget for a spring statement and an autumn Budget. All I can say is that I promise it will not be like that. The intention is clearly to move to a single event each year when, in normal times, we will make tax changes, but it is prudent, especially in these times, to reserve the right in extremis to announce tax measures at the secondary event, if absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentleman poses a perfectly sensible question. My interpretation of the figures in the table is not the same as his, but I would be very happy to engage in a discussion with him offline.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Although my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is not a conduit for the Transport Secretary, may I nevertheless welcome the £80 million for smart ticketing included in his statement? He is interested in productivity and our flexible labour market. Is he aware that we have many constituents who commute three or four days a week at most and are forced to pay for a full-time travelcard? In his programme of smart ticketing, will he look at that?
Mr Hammond
I am aware because I was once upon a time the Transport Secretary. I am convinced that smart ticketing is the future for us. Smart ticketing allows us not only to deal with those commuters who do not travel every day, but to explore options where people might wish to travel in the peak period on some days but are able to travel off-peak on other days. If we could shift just 10% or 15% of commuters from the peak to the off-peak, we would change dramatically the pressure on rail infrastructure around London and other major cities, so that is definitely the future.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
May I return the Chancellor to the OBR’s statement that the Government’s reply on their Brexit position left the OBR “little the wiser”? The OBR has assumed that the Government will fail to meet their target of reducing immigration to tens of thousands. Given the Prime Minister’s recent statements on immigration being her priority, has the Chancellor gone back to the OBR and asked it to adjust that forecast?
Mr Hammond
No. The Prime Minister has been very clear that it remains her target to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, but she has also been clear that it will take time to achieve. The OBR forecast stretches over a period of five years, and the Prime Minister is absolutely clear that this is a target that will be achieved over a longer timeframe in order to manage the impact on the economy.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on an excellent first and last autumn statement. May I draw his attention to page 40 of the Green Book at paragraph 4.35, which I welcome? It states:
“The fuel duty rate will remain frozen for the seventh successive year, saving motorists around £130 a year compared to what they would have been paying under the pre-2010 escalator.”
This is a good autumn statement for drivers.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments and I am glad he is pleased with the statement. I know that he takes a great interest in matters related to fuel duty and vehicle taxation, and I look forward to continuing to engage with him on those issues in the future.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I remind the Chancellor that the labour market is not working for everyone. Every single year since 2014 I have asked why this Government are allowing the continued exploitation of workers under sham umbrella companies and false self-employment. Every single year I am told that the matter is under review. As the GMB’s recent success in the court shows, these workers are fed up with waiting. Why is it that under this Government a fair day’s work never really translates into a fair day’s pay?
Mr Hammond
First, the hon. Lady will find if she looks in the autumn statement document that we are moving to shut down an abuse of the VAT flat rate scheme that has been used by employment agencies to disguise employment remuneration. But she is right about self-employment, and I also mentioned specifically the increasing challenge of incorporation—the increasing number of single-person, zero-employee, single-director companies. The Prime Minister has asked Matthew Taylor to undertake a review of ways of working—
Mr Hammond
No, it has not been going on for two years. Let me tell the hon. Lady what happened. The Prime Minister took office in July, so it definitely has not been going on for two years. She asked Matthew Taylor to undertake that review, which is now under way. It is a very important review, looking at how employment rights more generally are being affected by this transition in our economy. That is being driven by technology, as much as anything, and I have said today that we also have to look at this issue from the point of view of the tax base, because the tax base is also under threat from these changes.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for helping low-income families today and, for helping to make work pay for those on universal credit. I thank him, too, for the London devolution deal for housing, which will increase the number of affordable homes to rent and to buy. Can he reassure me, though, that this is not a destination but a direction of travel and that, whether it be spring, autumn or any season, we will continue to stand up for working families and for the weak?
Mr Hammond
Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows very well that our stated ambition and the driver in everything we do is to build an economy that works for everyone, but we are realists, unlike the fantasists on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that we can build an economy that works for everyone only if it is a strong economy with strong investment and good, strong British companies exporting their products around the world.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Although I regret that there is no help for those WASPI women who need transitional protection, I welcome the investment in broadband infrastructure. Can the Chancellor assure the House that that will be fairly spread across rural communities and throughout all devolved and non-devolved jurisdictions to prevent further broadband inequalities opening up across Northern Ireland and Britain?
Mr Hammond
The money that we are investing will be used partly to fund pilots, particularly to cement our lead in 5G, and partly to catalyse private sector investment. Our telecoms infrastructure is primarily funded by private investment, but I can assure the hon. Lady that this funding will be spread across the United Kingdom. We want to spread the benefits of 5G and superfast broadband as widely as we possibly can.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to colleagues on our side of the House who have long campaigned hard for more investment in regional infrastructure, R and D, and innovation. The £683 million towards south-west regional local growth funding and the £1.1 billion English transport fund will make a big difference to constituencies such as mine. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the west of England devolved authority and the new mayor to ensure that we better unlock productivity, more growth and the jobs that we require in the west of England?
Mr Hammond
As far as we are concerned, that is the principal purpose of the mayoral combined authorities: yet another lever to drive productivity in the English regions. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be happy to work with my hon. Friend on that project.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I am always shining on you, Mr Speaker.
The Chancellor is no philistine, so he will know that Lloyd George, a predecessor of his, visited Holmwood House in my constituency in 1928. Although the right hon. Gentleman appears to have dismissed my appeal for restorative funding for the building next year as we approach the bicentenary of its architect, will he assure me that this is not quite the end of the road? Will he commit, as the Scottish Secretary has done, to engaging positively on the matter in future?
Mr Hammond
The danger, of course, of having indulged myself with one specific announcement is that hon. Members are bound to assume that that means bad news for other projects. The bulk of the funding available for that kind of work will be held and distributed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will make announcements as appropriate.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
The gross value added of my constituency, like that of many constituencies in Hampshire, is affected by missing junctions on the M27, the queues on the M3 and poor east-west connectivity. Chickenhall link road in my constituency is vital to facilitate a longer runway at Southampton airport. It will tackle air pollution and unlock potential housing. Will the Chancellor make a statement about the local majors fund and how that will play into this autumn statement?
Mr Hammond
No; I am sorry to say that to my hon. Friend. What I have done today is added £23 billion-worth of infrastructure and R and D expenditure to existing very significant budgets. Part of that will go to transport and some of that will go to road schemes, but it will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to listen to the representations that my hon. Friend and others are making and to allocate the fund, according to the appropriate principles, to maximise productivity growth in our economy. I am sure that he will be delighted to talk to her.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Schools in my constituency are not alone in stepping in to fill the welfare gap, as parents on the breadline hit by Government cuts struggle to buy their children’s school uniforms, shoes and stationery. The situation is getting worse—in the 21st century. What impact does the Chancellor believe his projected 8% per-pupil spending cuts, as estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, will have on the social mobility of a generation of children? How can it be right that instead of softening the cuts, for which he voted, he has instead chosen to spend £60 million a year on expanding grammar schools? What I have raised should have been part of his plan for productivity.
Mr Hammond
I do not agree with the hon. Lady; she needs to look at these things in the round. I know that Labour Members like to take a single example and exaggerate it, but they need to look at the package in the round: what we are doing with raising personal allowances for taxation for people in work, dramatically reducing the tax that they pay; taking millions of people out of taxation; and a pay rise for millions of people from the national living wage. The hon. Lady should look at it in the round.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I welcome the news on universal credit, but support is also vital. I urge the Chancellor to support the extension of the DWP’s excellent small employer pilot, which is already helping those with disabilities and long-term health conditions.
Mr Hammond
The Department for Work and Pensions has some excellent programmes and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions confirms to me that he has adequate funding for all those programmes.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The oil and gas industry has a bright future. When will the Chancellor implement the tangible changes that his predecessor committed to on both decommissioning tax relief and loan guarantees? The industry needs those measures to secure current investment and so secure increased future productivity.
Mr Hammond
Yes; I have confirmed again today that we will proceed with those measures. We will proceed with them as quickly as we possibly can.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
There has been a lot of negativity from some Opposition Members, but more people are in jobs than ever before and that means that in North East Hampshire more people are in good jobs, with average earnings of more than £47,000. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on committing to increasing the tax-free allowance but on raising the threshold for the higher rate? Clearly, many hard-working families are being hit by a tax that was never intended for them.
Mr Hammond
That is absolutely right. We made that commitment in our election manifesto; it was a commitment on which we were elected. Despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we will deliver on that commitment.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for agreeing to the request made by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to reintroduce the distributional analysis of the Budget. I have looked at that analysis and, in spite of a bit of tinkering with the methodology, it is clear that, as a result of the tax and welfare changes in this autumn statement, the bottom three deciles—the lowest-income households—will be left worse off than the highest earning group of households. How can he possibly justify that? As well as helping the “just about managing”, will he commit to helping the people who are barely managing or cannot manage at all?
Mr Hammond
Our intention will be to try to ensure the fairest distribution possible. I welcome the debate that the hon. Gentleman and others have stimulated on the appropriate way to present distributional analysis—the issue is not completely cut and dried or straightforward—but I say this to him: we were elected on a manifesto commitment to get welfare under control. Working-age welfare had spun out of control between 1980 and 2010. We have now got it back under control, which implies that we have had to take some tough decisions. We have taken them. I will accept and explain the consequences of those.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
To support those who are just about managing, there need to be more affordable houses. Is the Chancellor pleased to see the welcome from the chief executive of the National Housing Federation for today’s measures that will enable an additional 40,000 such houses to be provided? With planning consents running at the highest level for years, does my right hon. Friend look forward to the sector getting spades into the ground very quickly?
Mr Hammond
Yes. One of the attractions of funding affordable housing is that it is a tried and tested and generally pretty efficient delivery method. I am afraid that while I stand at the Dispatch Box, I am not digitally enabled, as they say: I was not aware of the welcome that my hon. Friend refers to. However, I am delighted that this has gone down as I hoped it would with the relevant people.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that there has been no reversal from the Government on the two-child policy and the rape clause, which will mean that people cannot possibly work their way out of the situation they are in. May I ask about another group of people who cannot work their way out of the situation they are in? I am talking about the new “pretendy living wage” rate. That will leave 16 and 17-year-olds £3.45 worse off than someone of 25 doing the same job. Why is the labour of 16 and 17-year-olds worth less to the Chancellor than that of those aged 25?
Mr Hammond
We judge that getting people into the workforce, even at entry-level jobs, is critically important. There is abundant evidence that if people get into a culture of worklessness at a young age, that will blight their lives for ever.
Mr Hammond
I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Lady this, but we live in the real world, where people will be employed only if employers can afford to take them on at the wage rates they have to pay them. Getting these young people into the culture of work is the most important thing we can do for them, for the rest of their lives.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In East Sussex, we have the challenge of a large social care bill for an ageing population and low business rate returns to pay for that. I am aware that the Chancellor will not be allocating county money, but may I ask that his £23 billion investment fund is allocated with East Sussex’s financial and demographic challenge in mind?
Mr Hammond
I am afraid I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend, because the £23 billion is specifically targeted at productivity-enhancing investment in R and D and infrastructure. That is because we judge that, with our level of debt, to be credible in the markets, we have to borrow only for that kind of additional productivity-enhancing investment, and it will go into network investment, R and D and innovation.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The statement about Wentworth Woodhouse is very welcome economic news for South Yorkshire, but it failed the graciousness test, because it omitted to pay tribute to the campaign led by the formidable Julie Kenny to save the house. However, South Yorkshire needs much better transport links if it is to succeed economically. On that basis, why has only one of the five strategic road projects—the Oxford to Cambridge expressway—been given the go-ahead today? Is South Yorkshire going to get its trans-Pennine tunnel link or not?
Mr Hammond
As I tried to make abundantly clear, I am intending to move away from a micromanagement approach to the budgets of my right hon. Friends, who are perfectly capable of evaluating the arguments, making the decisions and announcing them themselves, and that is what will happen in future. What I will say to the hon. Lady is that I did have the pleasure of meeting Julie, who explained to me the very considerable efforts that have been made so far, and I am delighted that we have been able to support that project.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend of increased infrastructure spending, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not plug the rail connection—not least at Yeovil junction—that will take faster trains to my constituency, where roads are at a premium and we cannot, because we have beautiful countryside, have more tarmac. Can I just tell him that we shall be coming to seek his help with that?
Mr Hammond
To be consistent, I would have to direct my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, who, I am sure, will be delighted to hear his representation.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Why should anyone believe the promises being made by a Conservative Government pretending to be the friend of working people and the party of the working class, when but six weeks ago workers were promised a seat on the board of the companies that employ them and a voice in their own future, only for that promise to be broken six weeks later, on Monday of this week, by the Prime Minister?
Mr Hammond
That is not what happened. I am afraid I am not responsible, and neither is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for what newspapers choose to write in their headlines. What she said, what she believes and what she is committed to is ensuring that there are proper channels for the voices of consumers and workers to be heard at board level in companies, so that those voices can be taken into account in a proper way in decision-making processes—and that is what will happen.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I join colleagues in welcoming the £1.1 billion infrastructure spending, particularly as the Brighton main line is falling apart and needs fixing if we are to enhance the productivity of Croydon constituents and others. What reassurance can the Chancellor give the hundreds of thousands of people using this line that the Transport Secretary will look at upgrading and fixing that infrastructure?
Mr Hammond
I can certainly guarantee that the Transport Secretary will look at it. What I am afraid I cannot guarantee for my hon. Friend is where it will be prioritised in the rail investment programme—as he knows, it is a very long-term programme. What I have done today is announce specific funding for piloting and trials of digital railways. This is another transformative area, because if we can get trains on main line railways running at the kind of headways we are used to on the London underground, for example, we will not need to build expensive additional infrastructure; we will be able to squeeze a lot more juice out of the infrastructure we have, and that is my preferred route forward.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
In the light of the move to an autumn Budget, will the Chancellor listen carefully to any recommendations from the Procedure Committee about reform of the estimates process, particularly in terms of opportunities for us on Scotland’s Benches to scrutinise Barnett consequentials, which we were told we would be able to do through estimates as a result of the English votes for English laws process that was introduced?
Mr Hammond
I will certainly look at the point the hon. Gentleman raises. I do hope he welcomes the move to an autumn Budget. Certainly, one of the considerations when we were looking at this was the way it will interact with the Scottish Government’s Budget, and I hope it will be helpful.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I warmly welcome the investment in rail and road links from Oxford to Cambridge through Milton Keynes, delivering on the infrastructure commission’s recommendations. I have been campaigning for east-west rail for many years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that investment will accelerate delivery of the project?
Mr Hammond
Yes, it will accelerate delivery of the project. As I said in my statement, and I cannot emphasise enough, I think this has the potential to be so much more than just a transport link. We have many world-famous universities, but we have two there that, more than any others, are world-famous, recognised research names. Linking them together over a 60-mile stretch of road and rail unleashes enormous possibilities for creating a new tech corridor, building on the huge success of the Cambridge science park.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
In his statement, the Chancellor correctly mentioned the scourge of tax avoidance. Has he seen the report published last week by the Public and Commercial Services union and the Tax Justice Network, which warns that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff believe that its office closure programme
“will negatively affect its staff and its ability to collect tax and enforce tax compliance”?
Will he review the HMRC office closure programme as a result of those concerns?
Mr Hammond
We have put £800 million of additional resource into HMRC. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statement today, he will see that we have put some more money in today. But much of the way in which HMRC operates is about having specialist units, which often have to be concentrated; it is not about the old local office structure that has traditionally been in place. If we want effective action against the most complex forms of tax avoidance and evasion, we have to be prepared to go with the recommendations of the experts.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I listened carefully to the Chancellor’s autumn statement, and I then carefully read the Green Book to find the reference to the resilience of the Dawlish coastal railway on page 29. I know he is not doing individual schemes, but am I right in assuming that the inclusion of this £10 million preparation project and work is an indication that the massive infrastructure investment that has been talked about is likely to include the nearly £300 million project to secure that line, which this work is the preparation for?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend can take this as a clear indication that this is a high priority in terms of rail resilience. We are all acutely aware of the vulnerability of the rail system in the south-west as a result of flood risk, and this is the first step to resolving that.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Given the decline in the value of sterling, how much will we have to pay for the F-35 fighters to go on our aircraft carriers? The present going rate is $100 million a time. Has the Chancellor increased his estimate of the cost of these fighters and other defence kit imports for future years?
Mr Hammond
It is a fair question, and the answer is that the Ministry of Defence, unusually among Government Departments, has the ability, and does in practice use the ability, to hedge currency risk, because so much of its capital expenditure programme is denominated in US dollars. So it does have a degree of protection over the coming years; that protection will not last forever, and if sterling’s current relative weakness against the US dollar persists, we will have to revisit this. But I would hope and expect that, as the cloud of uncertainty around the British economy disperses in due course, and people are able to see the strong prospects for this economy in the future, we will see sterling gradually finding its feet again.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I welcome the fact that the Edinburgh south-east Scotland city deal is still in today’s autumn statement, but the local authorities involved in this process have been making plans for it for more than two years. In June, they were expecting sign-off by December, but we have not seen anything come forward yet. Can the Chancellor confirm when the city deal will finally get sign-off?
Mr Hammond
No, I cannot. We are committed to, and engaged in, the process, and I have just confirmed that today, but, obviously, there are things that have to be agreed between the parties. I am not into the details of the negotiation on Edinburgh, but we clearly have to get to a conclusion as quickly as possible to see that the benefits are delivered to the people of Edinburgh. I hope the hon. Gentleman will urge the city council to engage enthusiastically in getting this done.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
I am interested in the National Infrastructure Commission investment and the money that is going to LEPs in the north of England—that is to be welcomed. I accept that the Chancellor has said that the Transport Secretary will be making an announcement very soon, but does the Chancellor not agree that money for the electrification of the Calder Valley rail line would help improve productivity in the area and redress the imbalance in the country?
Mr Hammond
I am not going to be tempted, as a former Transport Secretary, to get into the weeds of my right hon. Friend’s portfolio and talk about specifics of individual projects on the rail network, but, as I said, he will be making a statement in the near future.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Will the Chancellor confirm that the assumption on pages 241 to 248 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” not only means that all forecast numbers will be subject to high margins of error but implies that the Government will fail to achieve single market membership?
Mr Hammond
No, it does not imply that. However, it is the case, as I have said, that the OBR has acknowledged specifically that there is a higher degree of uncertainty around its forecasts this autumn than there is usually, for reasons that are obvious.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Having opposed the welfare cap as a search engine for cuts, may I at least acknowledge in passing the projected increases that are allowed in the statement? On devolution, the Chancellor rightly waxed positive about city deals in Scotland and in Wales, as he has on those in England. Will he be more than passive in his encouragement to the Northern Ireland Executive, who have been persistently derelict on these prospects?
Mr Hammond
Yes. I am not sure how much influence I will have over the Northern Ireland Executive, but next time I bump into a Member of it, I shall make that very point.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
According to the OBR, the fall in immigration following the referendum will cost the Chancellor £16 billion over five years. Surely he should be a brave and enthusiastic champion of free movement of people, with his next-door neighbour.
Mr Hammond
The Prime Minister has made it clear that we have to accept not only the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, but that clearly implied in that decision is a desire for control over movement across our borders. That is not the same as cutting ourselves off from Europe, or turning our backs on Europe, but there has to be control of the flow of people into the United Kingdom. The challenge, therefore, is to get a deal that effectively allows our businesses and workers to sell their products into Europe, and European businesses and workers to sell their products into the UK, while still meeting the political mandate that we have received from the British people.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Leeds remains the biggest city in Europe without a light rail or an underground scheme. I welcome the announcement on transport infrastructure to tackle congestion. Can some of that money go towards the existing £250 million that could be used on a ground-breaking light rail scheme connecting with Leeds Bradford airport, which does not have any fixed rail link?
Mr Hammond
I am afraid I am just going to repeat that I am not going to get into the weeds of trying to allocate every pound of funding that I announce in these statements to specific projects. This must be an issue for my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Green Book confirms a £1 billion shale wealth fund, but after more than four decades we are still awaiting an oil fund in Scotland. However, the big ask is on loan guarantees. Given that the Thames tideway project got a £4.2 billion loan guarantee, can the Chancellor confirm the value of loan guarantees for oil and gas as soon as possible?
Mr Hammond
I have announced today that the UK loan guarantee scheme will be extended until at least 2016. It has a very significant amount of headroom; I think the cap on it at the moment is £40 billion, and we are nowhere near using up that capacity. The important thing about the UK loan guarantee scheme is that it underpins projects at an early stage. Many projects have gone ahead without loan guarantees, but because they had a commitment on the loan guarantee they were able to proceed and then eventually were able to get funding without it. It is playing a very important role that is understated by the measure of guarantees actually issued.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
On the shale wealth fund, is the £1 billion totally Treasury money or is some of it coming from the companies that will be developing the shale gas project?
Points of Order
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As exchanges this afternoon have underscored, the national health service, and the facts about it, are crucial for all our constituents. In yesterday’s debate, the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), to whom I have given notice of this point of order, declared: “Our”—that is, the Labour party’s—
“manifesto was very clear that we would put in £2.5 billion immediately”,
and then his addition,
“plus whatever was needed.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 859.]
In fact, the 2015 Labour party manifesto said:
“we will introduce a tax on properties worth over £2 million to help raise…£2.5 billion”.
There was no mention of “plus whatever was needed”. We all know that our constituents are looking for veracity and truth with regard to the health service. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the public or this House, or to make this slip, but could you advise me, Sir, on how best to place on the record this corrected point so that the public can see the veracity of the argument?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has just found his own salvation, as the puckish grin on his face suggests he realises.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and further to the desire of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for veracity and truth, may I get your guidance on Government claims that they are spending an extra £10 billion on the national health service? I asked the UK Statistics Authority to look into this, and when it wrote to me this week it told me that an issue that has
“caused confusion is that while NHS England spending is rising, some other elements of the Department of Health budget are decreasing.”
The authority continues that it
“will be asking that HM Treasury investigate whether in future they can present estimates for NHS England and total health spending separately.”
Given this guidance, and given that there is not one extra penny piece announced by the Chancellor today for health and social care, can you, Mr Speaker, use your good offices to ensure that the Prime Minister and other Ministers desist from using this bogus claim?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. All Members, including Ministers, are responsible for the veracity of what they say in this House. The hon. Gentleman has formed his own view about this. There are a variety of methods open to him to draw attention to his views, which I know are very important, especially to him, but it is on the whole preferable that it should not be done through incessant points of order for the Chair when, whatever the merits of the case, they are in fact nothing of the kind.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the strategic defence and security review last year, it was reported that the national shipbuilding strategy and the Government’s response to it would be published by the time of the autumn statement. Sadly, the strategy and the report have not yet been published. Have you, Mr Speaker, received any indication from any Minister from the Ministry of Defence whether they will make a statement today on the industry, which is iconic and highly skilled and which affects many of my constituents?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no. I have received no such indication. However, knowing what an assiduous and eager beaver the hon. Gentleman is, I feel sure that he will be in his place for the business question tomorrow and veritably leaping to his feet in order to request a statement or a debate on this important matter.
Representation of the People (Voter Proof of Identity)
Wednesday 23rd November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People (Voter Proof of Identity) Bill 2016-17 View all Representation of the People (Voter Proof of Identity) 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
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require those on the electoral register to produce proof of identity at polling stations before voting; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to bring the electoral rules used in Northern Ireland to elections for the rest of the United Kingdom, to reduce electoral fraud and ensure that our elections continue to be both fair and free. Our democratic system, and especially the way we vote, is based on trust. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which observes elections across the world, has raised concerns about trust-based electoral systems and their potential to be abused, and about the vulnerabilities of the UK system.
A polling station is a place in which a ballot can be cast in secrecy and free from any external influence; it is the individual’s decision for whom to vote. The role of polling station staff is to ensure that voters can cast their vote in secret, free from undue influence and in a calm atmosphere. We have all heard the phrase “vote early and vote often”, but it appears that that is increasingly happening. In some polling districts where the population is stable with a high turnout, repeat visitors will be noticed by the staff at the polling station, especially if the staff have worked the same station for a series of local and general elections. Repeat visits will be far harder to spot, and the polling station staff less confident to challenge them, where turnout is low and there is a more transient population, because a far greater proportion of voters will be unfamiliar.
As society changes, we have to assess whether our traditional “trust” system of voting needs to change, because it risks becoming outdated and being undermined. Our democracy is a living thing, and we have reformed and developed it over time. All the measures taken by Parliament in the past to improve free and fair voting, such as the Ballot Act 1872 and the Representation of the People Act 1918, were made in the interests of the electorate and of democracy. We are now approaching a time when an improvement must again be made so that we do not lose our democratic integrity, which has evolved over time and which must evolve again.
In recent years, concerns about the integrity of our voting system have been building in a wide range of areas. I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the independent review and report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), the Government’s anti-corruption champion, who concluded:
“To retain the integrity of our democracy, we need to introduce more rigour into the processes we use”.
His comprehensive report highlights a whole range of concerns and suggests actions to put them right. No doubt many colleagues in this place will share those concerns and will be aware of problems in their own constituencies. Because of its nature, the level of fraud, particularly personation at polling stations, is difficult to gauge, but that does not mean that it is not happening or that simple steps should not be taken to stop it happening.
Electoral abuse was evident on a significant scale in Northern Ireland before the requirement to produce identification was introduced 30 years ago, and the situation was further improved in 2003 with the requirement for photo ID. Although I appreciate that some may have reservations about that requirement deterring people from voting, in Northern Ireland the number of people who do not vote because of a lack of suitable ID is very small. There is a strong case to be made that the use of ID may, in fact, increase voter turnout; some people do not vote after losing their polling card, which they do not actually need to bring in order to cast their ballot.
When we see a problem and contemplate a solution, we have to ask ourselves whether the cure is worse than the disease—whether requiring people to have suitable identification to participate in democracy is too big a hurdle. If someone buying cigarettes or alcohol was asked for ID we would hardly think it a problem. When we pick up a package from the Royal Mail collection office we may think that having to show proof of identity is rather a good thing. We have to prove who we are in so many different circumstances that it can hardly be viewed as a problem to have to do so when directly participating in something so important as democracy.
I wish to make it very clear that the Bill does not represent a move to create a national identity card or a way to keep a check on people. It is simply a move to add voting to the list of many things that require identification. Identification does not have to take one single form; for example, when we collect our post from the post office 20 forms of ID are acceptable, from a birth certificate to a bank statement or passport. Northern Ireland allows seven different forms of photo ID for voting, including an electoral identity card, which is provided free of charge.
The purpose of requiring ID is not to create a barrier for people but simply to prevent fraud and enhance the integrity of the voting system. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Electoral Commission all recommend the use of ID in voting.
Britain has a formidable history as the mother of Parliaments, and the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy has been adopted by many other nations. If our model falls into disrepute and fails, that will be bad for democracy the world over; if we sit back and allow that to happen for fear of change, we will be in the wrong. We cannot and should not sacrifice the integrity of our democratic system. Challenging issues of community cohesion and political engagement must be taken into account, but they must never be an excuse for failing to act to uphold the rule of law.
I ask that the Bill be introduced, so that electors are confident in their democratic system, and so that those entitled to vote may do so and, as in Northern Ireland, we minimise personation and fraud in polling stations in Great Britain.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I see from the profile of the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) that he is an engineer. Frankly, if someone had put a project to him with such a singular lack of evidence as this has, I am sure he would have thrown it in the bin, which is what should happen to this miserable Bill. It comes straight out of the Donald Trump, US Republican, Conservative central office school of disinformation.
As we have seen in the United States, such measures are a blatant attempt to depress voter turnout. Very interestingly, the hon. Gentleman gave that away. He talked about areas with stable populations, and there being a problem in areas with a transient population. What was he talking about, I wonder? Basically, he was saying that things are all right in Tory areas, but we must have a problem in city Labour areas. He gave the game away very easily.
Of course, in a democracy it is very difficult to justify denying people the right to vote, so a mythology has to be developed that there is widespread and significant voter fraud. In the post-truth, post-fact world, that becomes easier to spread. But let us look at the data and the facts, starting with the United States, where this conspiracy theory comes from—Donald Trump was repeating it only recently. There has been a detailed study: under Republican President George W. Bush, the US Justice Department was tasked with searching for voter fraud. From 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections in the period studied, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting.
Let us not rely only on the United States, although that is where this idea has come from; let us look at the United Kingdom and the Electoral Commission report on elections in 2015. At the 2015 general election, 31 million votes were cast; in the local elections that year, many on the same day as the general election, 20 million were cast; and there were about 400,000 cast in mayoral elections. How many cases of fraud were there? Let us have a look. There were 123 cases relating to voting offences. Remember, 31 million votes were cast. The 123 figure includes: voting offences; personation—voting as someone else; breaches of secrecy requirements; tampering with ballot papers; bribery; cheating; and undue influence. Out of 31 million votes cast, there were 26 cases of voting as someone else at a polling station, 27 cases of postal vote fraud, and 11 proxy cases—we should not forget them.
That was the number of cases reported, of course, not the number found to have any substance. Police investigation revealed that in 45 cases, no offence had been committed; in 36 cases, there was insufficient evidence; and that 10 suspects were impossible to identify. A great edifice is being erected on the basis of 16 cases resolved by the police. Six cases resulted in police cautions. I am not sure whether any of those cases went to court, yet the hon. Gentleman proposes the considerable inconvenience of insisting that people carry documentation.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Northern Ireland. I was a Minister of State for Northern Ireland. He may have noticed that it has a slightly different and unique political history. There are, therefore, no grounds for imposing its arrangements on the rest of the UK. If he wants voters to show identification, he may want to ask those on the Government Front Bench why, when they came into government in 2010, they abandoned their support for identity cards. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland does issue electoral identity cards, but he did not say how much that would cost.
There is no evidential basis for this measure. It would involve a lot of extra work. It would also increase delays, with longer queues at polling stations as people have arguments about it or have to go back. We already have problems at many polling stations. It would prevent a number of voters, particularly elderly voters, from exercising their rights. It is a petty, politically partisan proposal that should be dumped in the bin.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Green, Sir Eric Pickles, Jason McCartney, Jim Shannon, William Wragg, Mr David Nuttall, Mary Robinson, Craig Tracey, John Stevenson, Martin Vickers, Maria Caulfield and Luke Hall present the Bill.
Chris Green accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 97).
Exiting the EU and Transport
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and transport.
If I may crave the indulgence of the House briefly, I would like to say a couple of words about the situation on the railways in the south-west. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been considerable disruption as a result of storms, including line closures and very extensive delays. I can inform the House that following the flooding that closed the great western main line between Exeter and Tiverton, the line has now just reopened. The Barnstaple branch is due to reopen this afternoon. The Looe branch is still closed, but I hope it will reopen on Thursday. There was also disruption when the South West Trains route was closed. I am immensely grateful to all the staff at Network Rail. They sometimes get a hard time when things do not work, but they rally around when there are major incidents and deliver solutions quickly. I thank them all very much for their work.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for speaking to the House about this matter because it is not good enough for the south-west to be cut off again, or to be the poor relation of the national rail network. The report by the Peninsula Rail Task Force that was presented yesterday must be the framework for a fair deal going forwards, so will he commit to doing everything in his power to deliver on this piece of work and to make sure that Network Rail delivers for my constituents?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely understand the importance of the task ahead of us. The report, which I have read carefully, shares my view that the No. 1 priority is the sea wall and the cliffs at Dawlish. My hon. Friend will also be aware that last Thursday I announced—this was also in today’s autumn statement—the provision of £10 million for the next stage of the project. I am committed, as is the Chancellor, to making sure that it happens. It is a strategically important project for our nation—the south-west cannot be cut off via its principal railway routes—so I assure him that we will move ahead expeditiously with it.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and join him in thanking the Network Rail staff who turned the situation from that of two days ago, when there were literally hanging tracks, to one in which trains can run again. I am pleased that the Chancellor today described the £10 million of funding as the first step in this programme, and I thank the Secretary of State for his personal interest in this issue and his commitment to sorting out the issues with our rail infrastructure once and for all.
Chris Grayling
This absolutely needs to be done, and we will move ahead as quickly as we can. Following the incident on the Cowley bridge this week, flood protection works are due to start there imminently. It is a shame that the works have not quite started yet, but they will be starting very shortly, and I hope that they will deal with that issue so that such an incident cannot happen again.
Moving to the main business, the autumn statement demonstrates the Government’s commitment to modern infrastructure that can serve the public and support a dynamic economy. Our forthcoming departure from the EU represents a huge opportunity for Britain to carve out a new role in the world and to be a stronger and more ambitious country—a country that is better able to shape its own future in the world and a country that is outward-looking and open for business. That was what I campaigned for in the summer, and it is what the Government will deliver.
Business is starting to share this optimism. Since the referendum, several companies in the transport sector have announced significant investment in the UK. Nissan’s commitment of investment is fantastic news for the British economy, the north-east and the car sector, particularly as it is not just maintaining capacity at the plant, but expanding it. In August, Bombardier received an order for 665 new vehicles from Greater Anglia, which will secure jobs and skills in Derby. When I spoke to the international head of Bombardier’s rail division about a month ago, he said that such was the quality of the work in the UK, Derby was going to become a global hub for its rail business, which is another positive statement of commitment to this country.
Alstom has started work on developing a new site at Widnes, which will create 600 jobs along with, crucially, a training academy. The Spanish firm CAF has said it will now set up a train manufacturing plant in the UK, and Siemens, which manufactures rolling stock and other products in the UK, has committed itself to a continuing presence. Its chief executive said in July, “We’re here to stay.” Alongside Hitachi’s new rolling stock and manufacturing and assembly plant in Newton Aycliffe, which is creating 730 new jobs, this shows that we are becoming a centre for high-quality rolling stock manufacturing, so it is with good reason that I view the future with optimism as we approach negotiations on leaving the EU.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
While, of course, I entirely endorse the Secretary of State’s sentiment, there is an issue regarding British ports. It is a big issue, but I will not go into it now, as I am hoping to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, there are some serious questions still outstanding around qualified majority voting, as I am sure the Secretary of State knows.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I have discussed this matter in the past. The regulation coming out of the EU on ports is tailored to the particular structure of ports on the continent, but does not fit well with a private port sector such as ours. The opportunity to ensure that we have a regulatory framework that is right for the UK is one benefit that comes from leaving the EU.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
If between now and the great Act incorporating European legislation into UK law, as the first step towards unpicking things, the ports services directive comes into being—I am not sure how likely that is—would it not be incorporated straight into UK domestic legislation?
Chris Grayling
We have said very clearly that we will fulfil our legal duties while we are still members of the European Union, and that at the time of our leaving, it is our intention to transpose EU law into UK law. However, it is then for this Government and this House to decide what areas of regulation we want to keep and what areas we want to change. Having listened to the representations of Members about the ports directive, I suspect that this House will want to return to this area.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
How has this regulation, which to everyone’s great pleasure disappeared back in January, now reappeared? Why was it so popular that the House did not need to scrutinise it? Will my right hon. Friend tell me what amendments have been made to the regulation that now make it acceptable?
Chris Grayling
The first thing to say is that no piece of European legislation passes through this House unscrutinised, particularly thanks to the assiduous work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is one area where the Government intend that the House has the opportunity of proper scrutiny. It is very much my hope and belief, as I have said, that our decision to leave the European Union will ensure that in respect of ports, for which our model does not conform with that of the rest of Europe, we will have the opportunity to tailor something that is right for this country.
I want to focus on two particular areas, which will be the priorities for my Department in the coming months. At the top of the list is aviation. Our aviation industry is world class, and our airports service the third largest aviation network in the world. UK airlines have seized opportunities globally, including those offered by the European open skies agreement. I am focused on securing the right arrangements for the future so that our airlines can continue to thrive and our passengers have opportunities, choice and attractive prices. When I met the aviation industry, I found that one of its priorities was and remains the effective regulation of safety and air traffic management. That is also a priority for me as we approach the negotiations.
Our connections with Europe are, of course, important, but we need to widen our horizons, too, and we need to make sure that we have continuity for the aviation industry internationally. Leaving the EU gives us more freedom to make our own aviation agreements with other countries beyond Europe, and ensuring that we have that continuity when we leave is an imperative for me and my Department.
I have already had positive discussions with my current US opposite number about the arrangements that we will need after Brexit for the vitally important transatlantic routes. There will, of course, be a new counterpart in office in America in the new year, and I intend to reprise those discussions when the new US Transportation Secretary is in post. Both sides have an interest in reaching an early agreement and I am confident that we will achieve that.
Looking the other way, last month we signed a deal with China that will more than double the number of flights that are able to operate between our two countries, thereby boosting trade and tourism. This country is open for business and open to the rest of the world, and aviation has a big role to play in making that happen. Whether through new agreements or our support for a third runway at Heathrow, I will do whatever is necessary for our industry, businesses and the public. I shall have talks with other countries, such as Canada, where there is an interest in ensuring that we have good arrangements post-Brexit. There is a job to be done to make sure that that happens, but I am in absolutely no doubt that we will secure in good time and effectively the agreements that our aviation sector needs to continue to fly around the world and within the European Union. Not doing so is in no one’s interests. Many parts of the EU depend economically on the contribution made by British airlines flying to regional airports. It is in all our interests that that continues.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Given that the Secretary of State campaigned for leave, will he tell us how much preparation regarding this issue the Government of which he was a member carried out before the referendum?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman mentions preparation, but the objective is very straightforward. It is in the interests of the different regions and countries of the European Union that we continue to trade and to have good transport links between us. I see no logical reason for anybody to stand in the way of that. We now have to work out what the best precise arrangements will be. When it comes to aviation, however, the objective is business as usual. That is what is in everyone’s interests.
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State refers to business as usual, but he will know that aviation emissions are now included in the EU emissions trading scheme. Is it his view that we should remain in a trading scheme once we leave the EU?
Chris Grayling
The world has moved on somewhat. The International Civil Aviation Organisation agreement that was reached in Montreal six weeks ago provides a global framework to tackle emissions in the aviation industry. All of us, both inside and outside the European Union, will be part of that as we ensure that the economies of the developed and the developing world can continue to benefit from improved aviation links while, at the same time, we meet our obligations to control carbon emissions.
The second area on which I am focusing is road haulage. We depend on road hauliers—without them, our shops would be empty and industry would grind to a halt. Our logistics industry does a first-class job in getting our goods to the right places, but the vast majority of lorries on the roads never leave the country. As we look to the future and to trade that does leave the country and crosses borders, there is one simple fact that we need to bear in mind. About 85% of the lorries operating between the United Kingdom and the continent belong to EU-owned businesses—international hauliers that are not based in this country.
The member states of the EU and the United Kingdom have a common interest in reaching an agreement. We need sensible arrangements for the future to allow goods to flow freely from and to the United Kingdom. We need to give UK hauliers a fair chance to win business and to be successful. We shall focus on that during the negotiations, ensuring that we achieve the right outcome for the international hauliers that serve this country and for UK hauliers as well. I am talking to all those who are involved in running our roads and the freight services that use them.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will that include an aggressive look at freight charges for the movement of goods outside the United Kingdom to faraway markets? I understand that New Zealand, Australia and Canada have freight subsidies that allow them to cut the prices of freighted goods.
Chris Grayling
I am not necessarily a great fan of inappropriate subsidies, but I hope and believe that as we negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world we shall create an environment in which trade and freight haulage are conducted on a level playing field, and that there are no artificial barriers that push up our costs and help others to reduce theirs. Above all, however, we benefit from a world in which trade flows freely. That is clearly in the commercial interests of European hauliers, especially hauliers from the Irish Republic. I am very aware that as we enter the negotiations, we have a particular duty of care to our friends in the Republic. We have a duty to seek to reach an agreement that will ensure that their trade, which frequently involves travel by road through the United Kingdom to other parts of Europe, can flow smoothly. It is in all our interests to ensure that we have sensible cross-border arrangements.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State mentioned discussions with haulage companies. Is he discussing with them the fact that they currently rely on EU drivers, courtesy of licence harmonisation, and the fact that, even so, it is forecast that there will be a shortage of 40,000 HGV drivers by 2020? Is he having discussions about what the Government can do to plug that skills gap?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. The task is within the remit of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). Not only is he the Minister responsible for our strategic road network but, as a former skills Minister, he holds the skills portfolio in my Department, and I know that he is very exercised about this issue. Of course, with a managed system of migration, we shall be able to recruit skills internationally when we need them, but I want a new generation of young drivers. There is much that we can do to make the profession more attractive, and my right hon. Friend is working on that at this very moment.
I have talked about the potential for a more tailored regulatory framework for the ports sector after we have left the European Union. We have a thriving and competitive ports sector, strong international investment, and some first-class facilities. I believe that the sector will be an essential part of a nation that is focused on global trade, trading opportunities, and opening up trade links with other countries.
Our railway services through the channel tunnel link us with the continent, but apart from that Britain’s rail network is domestic. Although on day one after exit the rules will be the same as before, in future we shall be able to make our own decisions about changing those rules. We currently have a derogation from many of the EU standards for our existing railways. That is because many of them date back to Victorian times and were built to entirely different standards. That is not the case for new railways, so one example of the kind of challenge that we are dealing with in the construction of HS2 is the fact that European specifications for platform heights are inconsistent with flat access for disabled people on to trains. We have to address that as part of the development of HS2, but it is an example of how, freed from European Union regulation, we can make sure that we do a better job, in this case for disabled people, which I believe that Members on both sides of the House will think is the right thing to do.
I talked about the global opportunity for Britain, and across the transport sector I am determined not only to negotiate the best deal for Britain within Europe, but to find new opportunities for our transport sector around the world. We should support our industries as they sell their expertise and products and seek to win major contracts around the world. We have world-class expertise in this country in the automotive sector, aerospace, logistics, transport engineering, rolling stock manufacture and much more. We need to be confident in offering these services to the world, and we have every reason to be confident: we are doing some great things in this country at the moment, from the first-class work being done to deliver Crossrail in London to the high-quality automotive technology that is developing the new generation of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about Crossrail. The infrastructure gap between London and the rest of the UK remains unbridged, so does he agree that the Cardiff-Swansea section of the great western railway electrification project must be delivered with UK Government funding as soon as possible?
Chris Grayling
As I said in the House the other day, I am not at all happy with the progress that has been made on the electrification of the great western main line so far. Actually, right now my priority is to get investment in better services into Swansea as soon as possible. The economy of Swansea and south Wales needs improved services, and that is my focus. I do not want to wait for the future for infrastructure projects; I want better services now. As we re-let the Great Western franchise, I am determined to see improved services to south Wales that provide a real boost to the economy in the areas that the hon. Gentleman and other Members for south Wales represent. Better transport links and improved services to south Wales and to the south-west are essential to making sure that we have a productive economy.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
One of the key hurdles facing a lot of railway companies is the European procurement rules. Has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Department for Exiting the European Union on the procurement opportunities that are available outside the EU?
Chris Grayling
Clearly, outside the EU, we have the opportunity to shape our own procurement rules. I do not want to be part of a Government who say that international firms are not welcome in the UK—that would be quite the wrong thing to do—but it is equally reasonable for us to say, for example, “If you’re coming to do business with us by being involved in the construction of HS2, we want you to leave a skills footprint in this country. We want apprenticeships and technical skills, and we want the engineers of the future to be trained and developed, and to be working on these projects so that they can carry on beyond them to build us further projects for the future.” That is our intention.
Let me be clear: Brexit is an unprecedented opportunity.
Nick Smith
I am very unhappy that the Secretary of State avoided my question about supporting the Cardiff-Swansea electrification, so I would like a better answer on that in the future, please. I am owed a letter from his ministerial colleague the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). Having said that, the Secretary of State did say he wanted to support an economic boost for south Wales, so will the UK Government be supporting the Cardiff metro plans, which are important for getting Blaenau Gwent working again?
Chris Grayling
Not only are we supporting the Cardiff metro plans and looking at how to deliver better services to the whole of south Wales—it cannot be just about Cardiff; it has to be about what happens to the west—but I will also be looking at whether we can provide better services to connect with the west of Wales and better services to Swansea. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying it is not just about south Wales; it is also about how we deliver better services to north Wales. There is a tendency, particularly in the Administration in Cardiff, always to look to the south—there are important things happening there—but we as a Government have not forgotten that there are many different parts of Wales, and the commitment to the north is also very much in my in-tray.
Let me be clear that Brexit represents an unprecedented opportunity to shape our own future, and we will make the most of that opportunity. We will get out into the world and do business right across the globe, and at home we will continue to build a world-class transport system for this country.
Stephen Gethins
Will the Secretary of State tell us what meetings he has had with the European Transport Commissioner, given the importance that that relationship will have over the next little while? Will he also tell us what was discussed in those meetings?
Chris Grayling
I have already had one meeting with the Commissioner, when we were in Japan, and I will see her again next week at the Transport Council. We will work out the best way to take forward negotiations in due course, but we have had exploratory discussions. Those discussions have been constructive, and I look forward to having further such discussions with her.
I have to be mindful of the need to ensure that we have a structure for the future that will create stability and opportunity for our aviation and haulage sectors, and that takes advantage of the potential freedoms that leaving the European Union will offer this country’s transport sector. We fully intend to take advantage of that opportunity.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I echo the Secretary of State’s expression of his regard for the workers who have come to the aid of the south-west’s rail system yet again. We have heard other hon. Members express their disappointment that we are still looking at issues of resilience in that area, and I know that they will want that matter to be resolved as quickly as possible.
The Government’s strategy for leaving the European Union—or rather, the lack of one—is causing great uncertainty throughout the transport sector. I do not know who the Secretary of State is speaking to about this, but we, and those in the aviation, rail, road and maritime sectors, are none the wiser about what the Government’s plans might be and what impact Brexit will have on the future of those sectors and all those who work in or depend on them.
Sir William Cash
I have already referred to the question of the ports sector. Speaking as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I can tell the House that it has been well established over a long period that the Government, the Labour Opposition, the unions and every one of the 47 port employers are against ports regulation. What are Labour Members going to say about that during this debate? Are they going to oppose it?
Andy McDonald
If the hon. Gentleman can wait six or seven minutes, I will come to that very point.
Today’s debate offers a welcome opportunity for the Secretary of State to provide some much-needed clarity on his plans for transport in a post-Brexit UK. He was one of the leading advocates of Britain leaving the EU, and he now has the privilege of being the Transport Secretary, so if anyone can provide us with a clear picture of what to expect in the months and years ahead, presumably he can.
One of the areas of transport most likely to be affected by the country’s decision to leave the EU is the aviation sector, which is a key pillar of our economy. Taken country by country, the UK’s aviation sector is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world. It is worth about £50 billion in terms of our GDP, it supports 1 million jobs and it secures the Treasury some £9 billion in taxation each year.
While we accept the result of the referendum and are determined to secure the best possible deal for all the UK, we must not be an inward-looking nation that is cut off from the cultural and economic benefits that come with being an interconnected country. We must be ready to do business with the rest of the world. That means retaining and building on the connectivity that the UK currently enjoys in order to allow the flow of goods and services that will be key to getting the best out of Brexit.
Robert Flello
I, too, want Brexit to be a success and for us to get on with it and ensure that we get the best possible deal for our country. However, does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Department for Transport, which has seen massive cuts to its revenue budgets and day-to-day spend, just will not have the staffing in place to be able to deal with the huge number of issues? At the same time as we negotiate Brexit, we will be negotiating different agreements with other countries on matters such as aviation.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have seen the inability to see such things through and deliver them not only on this issue, but through the prism of the franchising system in the rail market. He raises a grave concern about something that we will be watching with great care in the weeks and months ahead.
Through its membership of the EU, the UK currently relies on the EU single aviation market, which allows airlines to operate freely inside the EU without restriction on capacity, frequency or pricing and enables the use of the EU’s external aviation agreements. Leaving the European economic area could mean that we are no longer part of the single aviation market and could lose access to those external air service agreements. That is critical, because unless the position is clarified urgently UK airlines will lose the right to operate within the European Union and airlines will lose the right to fly UK domestic routes. The Government must ensure that Brexit does not damage the UK’s connectivity. The aviation sector has been clear about the importance of retaining an unchanged operating environment.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman and others have talked about getting the best out of Brexit as it arrives. Given the seven options for that process, does he imagine that any will be as good as the situation that we have at the moment? People are looking for the best decision, but the question is whether it will be as good as what we have.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point that is the whole focus of this debate. It is our concern in this House that we are simply not going to be able to deliver the same level of interoperability and accessibility as we currently enjoy throughout Europe. In the aviation sector, it is critical to achieve that before we even begin discussions about our trading relationship going forward.
Nick Smith
The National Audit Office says that, under this Conservative Government’s watch, Network Rail and the Government have wasted £330 million so far on the great western mainline electrification. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department for Transport needs to pull its socks up to deliver on future infrastructure projects?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. That is the sort of wastage from this Department that we have seen in so many areas over the past several years. We have seen smart ticketing costs written off and the Great Western debacle. Everyone in this place is worried about its inability to function effectively.
It is vital that there be not only early assurances from Government, but confirmation that the status of current aviation practices will be guaranteed beyond our formal departure from the EU.
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. I was slightly reassured by what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago about his planned meetings with the US Secretary of Transportation. My hon. Friend talked about access to the European network, but the danger on the US side is that we will fall back on the Bermuda II agreement, which was designed for a whole different world and certainly not for the 21st century. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have more to worry about than just European skies?
Andy McDonald
I do share those concerns. Although it is clearly imperative that conversations be had with those across the Atlantic, I was a little anxious to hear from the Secretary of State that that becomes the first port of call, rather than trying to resolve matters within the European Union.
Chris Grayling
I have also spent quite a lot of time with my German counterpart and with a number of other European Transport Ministers, and I will be doing that next week.
Andy McDonald
I am delighted to hear it.
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House his plans for the UK’s relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency on leaving the EU? What is his intention? Will he seek to maintain technical co-operation through a bilateral aviation safety agreement approach, as with the United States, Canada and Brazil, or through a working arrangement with the EU, as is currently enjoyed by China, New Zealand and Russia? I urge the Government to confirm that air service agreements will be negotiated separately from the UK’s negotiations on future trade with the EU, as well as specifying the nature of those agreements. I invite the Secretary of State to outline his plans for UK airlines to retain the right to operate within the EU and retain access to the EU’s external air service agreements.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point about retaining the work done on the open skies agreement, because if we look back on UK air policy before that time, as I have done, we see that it was about bilateral agreements that specified flying into London airports only. I believe Iceland broke that by getting into Glasgow, because the father of one of the negotiators wanted to go shopping for suits in Glasgow. That absolutely points out the problem we faced when the UK was managing this itself: it was centralised for the benefit of the south-east of the UK, to the detriment of others.
Andy McDonald
I do not know where you get your suits, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Neither in Iceland, nor in Glasgow. It appears we should always go to Glasgow. The issue the hon. Gentleman raises is particularly pertinent given the decision we have just had on the additional south-eastern runway, so he makes the point well.
Numerous rail projects in the UK receive support via loans or direct funding as a consequence of our membership of the EU, and now is not the time for the Department to row back on investments in our railways, as we have seen happen repeatedly in respect of electrification works, which hon. Members have spoken about so eloquently this afternoon. I invite the Secretary of State to reassure the House that any funding shortfalls will be made up by the Government and that investment in rail will not suffer as a consequence of Brexit.
The Secretary of State said during the EU referendum that he wanted to take back control. Labour Members very much wish to take back control of our railways from private and foreign state-owned companies, which currently profit from the system at the expense of passengers and taxpayers. Ours is a policy supported by two thirds of the public, but, as the Secretary of State is aware, although running services in the public sector is currently entirely consistent with EU legislation, the fourth railway package may restrict the different models of public ownership that might be available. Does he agree—I believe he said so earlier—that it should be for UK voters to decide how best to order our railways? If so, will he confirm that his Government will not attempt to retain any European requirements in domestic law that would frustrate any future attempts to bring railways back into public ownership? I was delighted to hear what he had to say about HS2, and I suppose that if there is going to be a silver lining from leaving the EU, it will be that we will not be able to blame “them” any longer for any problems we have with disabled people getting access to our railway system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has not had an answer to his question, because he made it abundantly clear that he was talking about the infrastructure. The Secretary of State suggested he should be satisfied with improved services, but those will come only with improvements in the infrastructure.
The skills footprint, to which the Secretary of State referred with great regularity—of course we share some of his concerns—should be delivered whether or not we are in the European Union. That is not a consequence of any move. It should be an absolute prerequisite that is woven into everything we do.
Although we have decided as a nation to leave the European Union, co-operating with, and retaining our connectivity to, the EU is vital. We would greatly appreciate it if the Secretary of State enlightened us on what progress is being made to ensure that hauliers from the UK can carry goods between other member states and on whether it is his intention to secure an agreement for British driving licences to continue to be exchangeable with those of EU member states after Brexit.
Finally, let me mention UK ports, which directly employ more than 25,000 people, many of whom voted to leave because of anxiety surrounding EU ports services regulation. Many leave campaigners argued that leaving the EU would ensure full exemption from those regulations. However, the former shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), was reported as saying that the ports services regulation would still apply under an arrangement that granted the UK access to the European economic area. Can the Secretary of State clarify the Government’s intentions on any withdrawal from ports regulations and guarantee that any exemptions do not inadvertently undermine strong industrial relations and the welfare standards of dock and port workers?
Sir William Cash
Whatever the hon. Gentleman may try to infer with regard to the European economic area, it is completely beside the point. The fact is that there is a regulation and, as he knows, it is on the brink of being brought in—I believe it is by the end of this month. All that talk that he has just given us has nothing to do with the issue. The real question is whether the Labour party is going to oppose it. Will it say that it condemns it, because that is what the unions, the Government and, as I understood it, the Labour party wanted?
Andy McDonald
I am not sure whether I could have been any clearer. I have just addressed the issue head on. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he might be a little clearer in his own mind.
My contribution has been full of questions, because so little has been revealed so far that would give any idea of what the Government are setting out to achieve after Brexit and of the mechanisms by which they aim to achieve any such objectives. Huge questions remain over the future of our flourishing aviation sector; over what existing EU legislation will be retained and what that will mean for our railways and ports; over whether EU funding for transport projects will be made up by the Government, and over issues to do with connectivity by road and what Brexit will mean for haulage.
I invite the Secretary of State to bring forward the details of his Department’s plans for Brexit, which have been, so far, so stark staringly absent.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My main concern in relation to this debate is with regard to ports services regulation. It is a perfect example of where the European Union has gone completely wrong, and of why, in this particular sector, it is vital that we leave the European Union. I will give a number of reasons for that, which are drawn from those who have the most knowledge of these matters, including those who are referenced in the latest Library briefing.
As has been said by the Major Ports Group, many of the issues that confront UK ports are affected by policy and legislation from the European Commission and the European Parliament. The European Parliament is about to hold a plenary session and, for present purposes, it is assumed that the regulation will go through. It will then go to the Council of Ministers, which is governed by qualified majority voting.
The European Scrutiny Committee and I have been following this for several years, and I will come on to the timetable and my concerns about the failure to have a proper debate on the Floor of the House on this issue exclusively. The port employers say:
“While UK ports receive virtually no financial assistance from the public purse, the situation is very different in most continental ports.”
That is hugely important. We are an island. We have 47 ports. They are incredibly important, and I accept, of course, that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), has made clear his concern, but it does not alter the basic point: we cannot resolve the question of the port services regulation because of the qualified majority voting system. Even if we vote against it, we cannot stop it. That is the problem, and it is why I had to ask the hon. Gentleman twice about this. I will give a description in a few moments. I understand that that the Opposition have accepted the outcome of the referendum.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Not all of us.
Sir William Cash
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the Opposition in Scotland do not accept it, but there are reports in Scotland that many people there will be affected by the outcome of the regulation, so I shall continue. We are an island nation, but this is not just romantic blurb about this sceptred isle and the fact that we are surrounded by a silver sea; this is about whether we in this country can have an efficient port sector. As we are an island, we are heavily dependent on the ports as goods go in and out of them.
Robert Flello
For the benefit of the wider House, may I say that over 90% of our trade goes through our ports?
Sir William Cash
Indeed, and I know where the hon. Gentleman—my next-door neighbour—has got that figure from. It is from paragraph 6.2 of the Library note, which I can see he has been reading. I am glad that he has been so assiduous. The principle is that, despite the fact that we are an island, we compete with continental ports for certain types of traffic. Those in the ports industry are therefore concerned by a lack of a level playing field between the UK and continental ports.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman will have probably seen the report published on the front page of the Financial Times perhaps four, five or six weeks ago that the UK might have some difficulty carrying out customs checks at ports and other such points. At the moment, we carry out 35 million checks a year. We as the UK would need to carry out up to 240 million checks a year, but the new system has the capacity to handle about 100 million checks. If this situation emerges, it will cause a huge difficulty post-Brexit and inevitably damage trade, because the infrastructure is not there to do customs checks at ports.
Sir William Cash
My response is quite simple: if we do not continue to have an efficient ports system because of the effect of the port services regulation, nothing that the hon. Gentleman says will make any difference to the fact that our ports will be put not only at a severe disadvantage, but in a dangerous situation vis-à-vis the other continental ports. However, despite the fact that there was an attempt to get state aid rules imported into the regulation, the ports employers believe that
“it is essential that legislation aimed at regulating less commercial ports on the continent does not cause unintended damage to the UK’s thriving commercial sector.”
On that basis, there is a matter of principle that affects our whole import and export business that goes through the ports.
The effect that the proposal will have is so obvious that I need not even attempt to explain it. It aims to regulate market access to port services, port charges and financial transparency. The ports employers say:
“The text as a whole”
—this is some time ago, but I will catch up in a moment with what they have said most recently—
“even if heavily amended, cannot deliver on its states aims. Instead, it will create severe legal uncertainty, reduce investment and will ultimately be detrimental to the safety standards and working conditions which currently exist in EU ports. EU ports may have different ownership structures, but all require a high level of confidence in a stable legal and policy framework in the long term if they are to operate safely”,
which is for the benefit of the workers,
“and contribute to the EU agenda for jobs and growth”,
which is vital to everyone, whether they are employers or workers in the ports.
The UKMPG goes on to say:
“The Port Services Regulation proposal does not provide such confidence and risks leaving a legacy of legal and practical difficulties across the EU.”
The UKMPG
“supports a return to the previous EU ports policy approach based round application of the general provisions of the Treaty reinforced, where appropriate, by guidelines on state aids.”
We now have Brexit so, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested in relation to the great repeal Bill, are we going to reach a point, as I think we must, where we transpose the legislation into UK law but then, through statutory instruments and our own decision within the framework of this Westminster jurisdiction, as a result of the decisions taken by the people of this country, including Government Members and Opposition Members—with the exception, I suspect, of SNP Members, but they will pay a price for this in their ports areas—[Interruption.] They may find this amusing, but there are people in the ports of Scotland who do not like the proposal and will resist it if they can. They will not be allowed to do so if the SNP can get away with it.
The bottom line is that this is an issue of great national interest. The European Scrutiny Committee has been following the matter for several years. We first recommended it for debate on the Floor of the House in July 2014—over two years ago. On 19 October, I wrote to the Minister:
“We understand that it is intended that the European Parliament will adopt this text for a First Reading Agreement at its 12-15 December plenary and we presume that this will be followed shortly by Council agreement.
You will understand, therefore, that the Committee expects that the Government will finally, after a disgracefully long delay”—
which I underlined several times—
“schedule the floor debate on the proposal which it and its predecessor have recommended.”
In fact, there have been two debates, which have been aborted. One of them, I can assure the House, was so shambolic that the Chairman of the Committee had to suspend the sitting. I will not go into the details of that—they are all on the record.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I have been involved in the European Scrutiny Committee for several years. I did not intend to intervene, but I am concerned about this issue. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we will take into British law what now exists as EU law, but we will selectively disapply parts of the EU legislation that do not suit Britain, and this might be one of those.
Sir William Cash
That is absolutely right. It is essential that we disapply this, for that reason. The mechanics of it will be left to statutory instruments, but we must reassert our jurisdiction over our ports.
As recently as 17 November, I wrote again to the Minister, saying:
“The Committee has asked me to emphasise to you and the Leader of the House that this debate should take place before the European Parliament adopts the text for a First Reading Agreement and the Council’s subsequent endorsement of this text.
Failure to meet this timetable would suggest contempt for the House and its legitimate scrutiny requirements.”
Although the issue has been going on since July 2014, we still have not had that debate. There is just time for us to have such a debate. Although this is a general debate about exiting the EU, a specific debate is not only recommended but, in effect, demanded by the European Scrutiny Committee, backed by the sort of language that I have had to use, demonstrating the importance of the issue and the need to get on with it. The other point that I must make is this: I have had no reply to those letters. At its meeting today, I am afraid that the European Scrutiny Committee registered its deep concern about the situation.
I received my latest statement from the ports industry this afternoon. I want to read it out, because it is important that the House knows the latest position:
“One further point…is that the UK Government has insisted on pursuing the inclusion in the PSR of a ‘Competitive Market exemption’ rather than the option of having an exemption for the privately financed ports on the face of the Regulation itself”,
which is what the industry has been seeking.
“It is this Competitive Market Exemption provision that was finally agreed in the informal trilogue discussions between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission earlier this year and which is now in the final draft version of the PSR due to come before the European Parliament in December. However, this ‘Competitive Market Exemption’ is not an exemption—it is a process by which Member States may apply to the European Commission for an exemption”,
as if they could expect to get it.
“Any application would be determined solely by the European Commission, may be limited in scope or time, and would relate only to certain Articles of the Regulation. In short, it offers no guarantees that the PSR would not be fully binding on UK ports.”
Mr Cooper, the spokesman at last week’s annual parliamentary reception of the United Kingdom Major Ports Group, who is also CEO of one of the largest port companies, also had this to say:
“I will not rehearse the arguments against this wretched piece of wholly unnecessary legislation, but, as the endgame approaches, it remains a totemic example of a Regulation imposed by Brussels which is a one-size-fits-all straitjacket that runs entirely counter to our national interest. In its present form the Regulation is significantly less damaging than it might have been—and, alongside the DfT, the port industry can claim considerable credit for that—but it is not a success that can be guaranteed over the long term. Many of the changes to reduce the scope and impact of the Regulation have been a function of short-term political expediency.”
The problem is this. It is inherent in the procedures of the European Union—in the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Commission—that we are in this situation. We cannot stop it without leaving the European Union. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South says, the timetable in relation to the great repeal Bill is significant. However, this is a very good example. What is for sure is that if we repeal the legislation and follow Brexit to its logical conclusion—this applies to many other areas as well—the United Kingdom will be enabled to regain control: in this case, over its island ports and the business that goes in and out of them. It will do that under the Westminster jurisdiction, on the basis of a new ports Bill, after Brexit and after the great repeal Bill has gone through, for the benefit of people who work in the ports in an executive capacity as well as those working in the docks themselves—the workers, who deserve to be given a fair deal. The Government and the Opposition, recognising this, must appreciate that we need a proper debate about the issue. It is so important that we get this right for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
We have heard from the Secretary of State for Transport that we should have confidence; he has reassured us that we should have optimism, but, of course, we have heard no details.
The impact of Brexit on the different modes of transport—aviation, maritime and road haulage—will be immense, but its main effect will be on all the people in our communities, with rising costs for goods and mobility. There are also those who want to do business with us or to visit us as tourists. It is wrong for Ministers not to have a full explanation of how exiting the EU will impact on businesses, consumers and passengers.
Nobody doubts that we are facing stormy seas, yet instead of a plan we are told by the Foreign Secretary that Brexit will be titanic. That is scary enough, but time after time, in terms of plans and answers, we find it is just an empty vessel. The Government’s model is less a ship of state and more like the Mary Celeste. So let us see the Brexit rhetoric cast overboard, and let us hear some definitive answers.
People will be affected; they and our businesses deserve to know what the plan is. This failure to provide a plan is simply a plan for failure. People face additional journeys for connections, more expensive tickets, fewer rights to challenge delays and cancellations, additional insurance costs and long queues at border controls. When they call home, their calls could cost more because they will not have mobile phone roaming protection.
The Chancellor said today that he wanted the UK to be the No. 1 destination for business. Well, how are people going to get here? Let us start with aviation. Leaving the EU could restrict operations by UK airlines in Europe, and by EU airlines in the UK, leaving our constituents and visitors to the UK paying the price for Brexit through higher fares. Analysis from the independent Oxera economists states that such restrictions could lead to UK passengers’ airfares rising by 15% to 30%.
As an MP from the highlands, and as chair of the regional airports all-party parliamentary group, I am also extremely concerned about the increased cost pressure on regional airports. These airports have thrived with the increase in low-cost airlines, and the advent of cheap short-haul flights across Europe owes a large part of its success to the EU. As easyJet said:
“the single aviation area gives airlines freedom to fly across Europe and since its introduction passengers have seen fares fall by around 40 per cent”.
Without that agreement, fares will inevitably be higher.
Chris Grayling
Earlier this week, I met the proprietor of AirAsia, who has built an extraordinarily successful low-cost airline across south-east Asia. Countries there are not in a European Union-type institution. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me and to the House why it is not possible to have a low-cost aviation set-up in Europe with us outside the European Union, but it is possible to have such a set-up in a part of the world where there is no such body as the European Union?
Drew Hendry
Let me answer that by giving the right hon. Gentleman the words of easyJet itself. EasyJet is currently registered in the UK and can fly largely without restriction from the UK to other member states—France and Germany, for example—and wholly, in terms of the domestic market, within countries such as Italy. EasyJet is now setting up a separate operation outwith the UK to ensure that it can continue to fly without restrictions after the UK leaves the EU. As its chief executive officer, Carolyn McCall, said, current EU flying rights might have to be renegotiated, and the new company will ensure easyJet can operate within the EU. She added:
“We are not saying there will be no agreement. We just don’t know the shape or form. We don’t have the luxury of waiting. But we have to take control of our own future.”
That is in no small part due to the lack of clarity from the UK Government over what aviation agreement the UK will eventually come up with. The Secretary of State and his colleague the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have said:
“Market access remains a top priority, and we want to make sure we have liberal access to European aviation markets.”
Strikingly, however, there was no guarantee that the UK would stay within the open skies agreement. The UK Government need to explain to us now how this is going to work. When open skies was agreed back in 2008, the UK market was one of the key attractions for the United States. At the time, the UK accounted for a 40% share of the EU-US market. If the agreement ceases to apply, as was mentioned earlier, will the UK have to revert to the Bermuda II bilateral agreement, signed in 1946 and last amended in 1991?
Mr MacNeil
Perhaps there is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us whether we will be in the open skies agreement post-Brexit.
Drew Hendry
I am happy to allow the Secretary of State to intervene on that point if he wishes to do so, but obviously he does not.
The aviation market has changed considerably since the days of the Bermuda II agreement, and any reversion could cause disruption to UK airlines and transatlantic trade and passenger routes. If this is not the case, then what is the plan?
The implication of new border controls is negative in both ways. Ease of travel within the EU is attractive to our constituents and to those visiting the UK. Undoubtedly, passport checks and processing times for visitors from the EU will impact on our attractiveness to visitors. The fact that EU visitors will need to enter the UK through the non-EEA lines will require Border Force to commit significantly more resources at airports. Even with extra staff, queuing times for European visitors will still almost double to about 45 minutes. Those of us representing constituencies with a significant tourism economy find this extremely concerning.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Staying slightly on that topic, will my hon. Friend urge the Transport Secretary to engage with the US Government, who are currently considering Edinburgh airport for pre-clearance travel to the United States, as a positive way of showing the world that we are indeed open for business?
Drew Hendry
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he has made his point and I will not follow it up any further.
One can imagine, under the future provisions, being a tourist from Europe, especially in the short break market, with the choice of going to the UK or somewhere else where there is a lot less hassle—somewhere more welcoming. Additional space will need to be allocated to immigration control operations in airports and other ports of entry. It is thought that the costs could spiral into tens of millions of pounds. This cost must be borne by airports and port operators, who then cannot invest that money in increased connectivity and improving the passenger experience. According to the Tourism Industry Council, if the 23 million EU nationals who visited in 2015 were to be subject to full border checks, Border Force would be required to increase resources allocated to this by 200%—on top of the problems that already exist. Manchester Airports Group says:
“Border Force provision at a number of airports is already inadequate, with a lack of long term planning meaning queue times for passengers can already be unacceptably long.”
So what is the plan?
Ian Paisley
Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the detail of the hypotheticals of border controls, does he accept that the single largest threat to ordinary travellers in the United Kingdom, and across the entirety of Europe, is none of the things he has mentioned but the package travel directive about to be introduced by the EU, which will put additional costs on every single traveller because they perhaps use sites like Expedia?
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. So many issues are facing us that it is very difficult to pick out the single most important item. There are a lot of unanswered questions.
Is the plan to reach an agreement with the EU that the EEA channel will continue to operate in the UK, and that EU member states will allow UK citizens to use the EEA channel in the EU?
Regional airports are vital for connectivity within Scotland, but the reckless gamble with our EU membership has caused great uncertainty for these airports that could have a seriously detrimental impact on our economy. Scotland has a large number of regional airports, many of which are reliant on low-cost airlines and outbound tourism to survive and to be an economic success. The International Air Transport Association predicts that a 12% reduction in sterling would result in a 5% decline in outbound travel, while Ryanair has said that it is scaling back its expansion in the UK.
Kelvin Hopkins
Is it not the case that since 23 June, there has been a significant depreciation of sterling and a surge of people coming into Britain to buy things, because everything is cheaper here? Is that not good for businesses in Britain, including those in Scotland?
Drew Hendry
I am happy to answer that. When I was a retailer many years ago, the UK Government introduced an increase in VAT. Before that VAT increase hit, there was a rush to the shops to buy goods. After that increase hit, things fell through the floor, and I think we will see a similar effect.
Scotland has a large number of regional airports, many of which are reliant on low-cost airlines and outbound tourism to survive and to be an economic success. As I have said, the International Air Transport Association predicts a reduction in outbound travel. Since the EU referendum, sterling is down 25%. For airports such as Prestwick, it is even more vital that we continue the open skies agreement to maintain the number of outbound passengers, so it is incumbent on the UK Government to give an unequivocal guarantee that the UK will stay in the single aviation market after we are taken out of the EU. With 76% of UK holidays abroad being taken in the EU, outbound tourism is key for the industry. Outbound tourism employs more than 215,000 people across the UK, and it is a key driver in ensuring that our regional airports are successful. Remaining in the open skies single aviation market is vital to ensure that our airports remain economically viable, and low-cost airlines are vital if regional airports are to be a commercial success.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has talked about airports relying on bringing in tourists. Aberdeen airport is heavily reliant on business traffic, but with the difficulties that the oil and gas industry has faced, the airport has redirected its efforts towards sun destinations in the likes of Spain and towards eastern Europe. What kind of message does the lack of clarity about the plans send to an airport that is looking to diversify its offering?
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and he underlines the theme that I am working on just now. This uncertainty is bad not only for business, but for consumers, passengers and everybody involved.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman talked about exchange rates. I think that relative to the euro, sterling depreciated by far less than 25%. That is crucial, because that is where we have our serious trade imbalance. With the rest of the world, we have relatively good relations. The strength of the dollar has compounded the depreciation of sterling, but that depreciation will be beneficial to British industry, wherever we trade.
Drew Hendry
That is the kind of thing that somebody might want to put on the side of a bus. It has been a trait of previous UK Governments to take forever to make key transport decisions, but UK regional airports, including those in Scotland, do not have the luxury of waiting. For the sake of those airports, our businesses and our commuters, the UK Government need to provide a clear and unequivocal guarantee that any post-Brexit aviation agreement will not lead to a loss of investment and connectivity in Scotland if we end up outside the open skies agreement.
The current aviation policy framework sets out that airports cannot apply for a public service obligation or the connectivity fund because of the 60-minute rule, which means that a number of regional airports lose out. The Government’s EU gamble is putting potential investment in Scotland’s regional airports at risk. They need to think again and, in doing so, give regional airports a fighting economic chance.
The problems are not confined to aviation. Our maritime sector faces similar concerns. We have heard a fair bit about ports, but the maritime sector is worth €12 billion annually to the UK economy, and some 240,000 people are employed in the sector in the UK. Fifty-three per cent. of the UK’s imports and 45% of its exports are from the rest of the EU. It is estimated that approximately 3 million jobs in the UK are linked to trade with the rest of the EU. Currently, there is the freedom to trade. OECD rules could preclude any change, in so far as we are talking about the ability of a ship to call at an EU or UK port and to load and unload cargo and passengers, regardless of its flag and regardless of the nationality of its owner. UK-flagged ships could, however, lose their right to operate in the domestic trades of EU member states that maintain flag-based cabotage restrictions.
The British International Freight Association has said that its main concern is potentially losing the benefits of free trade and customs harmonisation with the EU single market:
“A return to tariffs for UK merchandise exports and imports, if this is the outcome...will be detrimental to UK trade with the EU, and may result in a…reduction in UK-EU maritime volume.”
As we have heard, the UK’s port sector is largely privately owned and run in a competitive environment, and is thus very different from those of many other EU member states. Oxera has also said that changes to the costs of trade with the EU are
“likely to affect the volumes and patterns of freight activity at ports, while the need for new customs checks on imports and exports is likely to cause considerable congestion at UK and mainland European ports.”
It suggests that any negative impact could be mitigated through EEA membership or free trade agreements, although delays in negotiations could mean a significant period trading under World Trade Organisation arrangements. Uncertainty will impact the industry and the people it employs, and drive up the price of goods, so what access arrangements will be in place?
Sir William Cash
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he will have heard what I said earlier. What is his answer to that with respect to the question he has raised about Scotland? Are Scotland’s ports not equally affected?
Drew Hendry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; I think we are making a very similar point from very different perspectives. There needs to be a plan for how ports are handled, going forward. The difference in the regulation and operation of UK ports as compared with EU ports provides a significant obstacle. The UK Government have to give us an answer on what they are going to do and how they are going to take forward a plan on that basis.
Drew Hendry
No, I will make some progress.
What access arrangements will be in place? What is the plan for the millions of people connected with this industry? Will UK companies have access to a single European market, with no taxes or duties payable on goods?
There are a lot of potential uncertainties for UK road haulage companies as a result of Brexit, particularly in terms of employment, drivers’ hours rules, access to markets and border controls. Transporting a lorry load of goods from London to Milan in 1988 required 88 separate documents; the internal market replaced them all with a single piece of paper. In response to the balance of competences review, the Freight Transport Association said that the EU had created
“a market that logistics has served for nearly half a century”,
benefiting British businesses; the Road Haulage Association, similarly, felt that for its sector the overall judgment was a fine one. It said that
“‘competences in UK road transport are finely balanced in our sector. Although we have not got a 100% solution in terms of market access we have got the most of what we think the industry would want”.
That is largely a reference to cabotage, the practice whereby a haulier from the UK can carry goods between two other member states—for example, Spain and France. So, what is the plan?
Chris Grayling
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, first, what proportion of cross-channel traffic is carried by UK hauliers as opposed to hauliers based elsewhere in the EU, and, secondly, the balance of cabotage carried out in the United Kingdom by European hauliers, and vice versa?
Drew Hendry
The Secretary of State is trying to make an argument similar to that made during the Brexit campaign about how the EU has to buy cars made here because there is a bigger market for them. That does not square with the facts of what is happening in the European market. For example, what will happen when there is a shortage of drivers in the road haulage industry, as at the moment many of them are EU nationals, supplying our road transport network? We have not heard the plan, and I heard nothing in the Secretary of State’s remarks today to say that there was a plan in this regard.
The EU single market has delivered significant economic and social benefits for Scotland. The four freedoms of the single market—freedom of movement of capital, of people, of goods and of services—have removed barriers to trade and opened Scotland to a market of more than 500 million people. The single market has also generated direct benefit, and there are now unanswered questions about funding. As of October 2016, some £350 million had been legally committed for transport funding, meaning a further £450 million is available as long as it is committed before the UK leaves the EU. Some £13 million of that went directly to Transport Scotland, with the agency being available to seek a further amount from the remaining £450 million. However, there has been not a peep from the UK Government or the Chancellor on whether the funds will be committed up to 2020. Will the UK Government seek to top up the funding to Scotland after we leave the EU?
I will conclude now, but there are many further issues relating to rail and bus networks, including vehicle standards and testing, disabled badges and a whole lot more. There are so many questions on transport in the light of Brexit that I think we will return to the subject again and again. Those questions are being asked not just by me or my hon. Friends, but by industry and the public. They deserve answers. They deserve “the plan”, but instead they see that, on issues relating to maritime, road or air, they have a UK Government who are all at sea, taking the road to nowhere, and booked on an expensive and uncomfortable flight from reality.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I am not sure if this is entirely parliamentary but, as I am following my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), we have had Bill and now we have Ben. I am not exactly sure, however, that we are in the same flowerpot right now.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the effect of leaving the European Union on our transport sector. Like many colleagues, I would have preferred to have had a debate on the effect of exiting the EU on the single market or the free movement of labour. Nevertheless, this is still an important issue for a number of residents in my constituency and in the United Kingdom as a whole. I note the irony that the House of Commons Library briefing paper on this subject suggests that
“transport post-Brexit may not look wildly different to how it looks now”.
However, given that much remains unclear as we head towards the negotiations, I would like to outline a number of priorities the Government should consider.
The European Union’s common transport policy is focused on a number of policy areas, most notably economic and social matters, environmental improvements and infrastructure investment. There has been a long-running debate on whether the benefits of European Union membership and access to a single market for transport services outweigh the relative burdens of regulation. It is my belief that the development of the common transport policy has benefited the United Kingdom by improving the health of our population and boosting economic growth, while ensuring we have the long-term infrastructure to compete in a global environment. We need to ensure that the UK continues to feel these benefits once we have left the European Union.
I would like to take this opportunity to change tack somewhat from the long conversations we have had about ports and to focus on two key areas: environmental improvements and infrastructure investment. I sympathise with the Government’s position that while Brexit negotiations are ongoing it is important not to make guarantees but, like many sectors, transport is an area that needs certainty. I am sure that we all agree about that.
First, I would like to concentrate on the environmental impact. Bath has a huge problem with air pollution. As colleagues will know, Bath is full of buildings constructed out of the famous Bath stone, which absorbs vehicle emissions. Sadly, high air pollution levels across the city mean many buildings are slowly blackening—hon. Members will be pleased to know that my home has been rendered, so it is not blackening at the moment. In some parts of Bath, air pollution levels far exceed the legal limit and cause problems to my constituents’ health and wellbeing. Of course, this is not a problem for just my constituency; it affects many constituencies of Members here today.
Ensuring that the transport system works in a way that does not have a negative impact on the environment—reducing the impact of noise, pollution, harmful emissions and greenhouse gases—is vital to the long-term health of our population. The transport sector accounts for almost a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union, making it the sector with the second highest level of greenhouse gas emissions, just behind the energy sector. Moreover, transport is the only sector in the EU whose emissions have risen since 1990—by a staggering 22% in total. The Transport Committee has been doing some work on this issue over a number of years.
Alongside our EU colleagues, we have committed to reducing emissions in our transport sector and meeting European emissions standards. It was the UK that pushed hardest on this very issue, so it would be a shame if Britain were to draw back now. It is crucial that such work continues after Brexit. This issue is not isolated in the UK—we share our air with the EU and the rest of the world—yet many are concerned that we will lose the collaborative approach that is critical to solving these pan-national problems when we leave the EU.
I recently visited the low-emissions vehicle research centre at the university in my constituency. Incidentally, it has benefited from £3.6 million of research funding and contracts from EU government bodies.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman mentions his university, and I am extremely concerned about research funding after 2020. Will he join SNP Members in asking the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary to give greater certainty to the university sector about the post-2020 world?
Ben Howlett
Several of us raised that matter during our consideration in Committee of the Higher Education and Research Bill. The announcement that the last few years’ funding will continue after we leave the EU is, of course, welcome, but the university sector is very concerned, for example, about our leaving Horizon 2020, which we have been part of for many years. That would leave a huge hole in higher education funding and it is something that I hope the universities Minister will consider during the Bill’s passage through the other House.
Bath University’s prize-winning research centres are having a hugely positive impact on the measurement and understanding of air quality in not just the UK, but the EU. The Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems, which is run and spearheaded by my university, will, I hope, receive some of the funding that the Chancellor announced earlier via the expansion of the local growth fund. This subject is obviously quite topical, given the recent Volkswagen scandal. Britain might end up with an opportunity to bring businesses such as BMW over to the UK to measure its air pollution levels, as Ford and other major international motor vehicle companies have been doing. It is important that, as we set out our position on exiting the EU, we remain committed to meeting our obligations on European emissions standards across the transport sector so that we improve the lives, and the health and wellbeing, of all our residents. I am sure the Government have that at the forefront of their mind as they consider transport policy after we leave the EU.
My second point relates to infrastructure investment. I would like to focus on the importance of maintaining adequate investment in our transport system and particularly in road, rail and aviation, many of which have already been mentioned. I welcome the Government’s commitment to completing the incredibly important HS2 project and their recent announcement on Heathrow airport expansion. Both are vital to the long-term development of our country. In 2014, the European Investment Bank provided lending of more than £6 billion to support long-term investment for a broad range of infrastructure projects across the UK, some 26% of which were in transport and the telecommunications sector, so it is an important funding source for such projects. While we have been instrumental in the creation of the trans-European transport policy and the fourth railway package, which aims to remove the remaining barriers to the creation of a single European rail area, I hope that conversations will take place as we leave the EU to ensure that Britain still has adequate train links with the EU. By removing bottlenecks, building cross-border connections and promoting integration and inter-operability between different modes of transport, we can ensure that the UK benefits from an infrastructure plan that promotes economic growth and job creation.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman talks about business growth. Does he agree that, just as transport improvements benefit business, so too does continued membership of the single market? Does he support our continued membership?
Ben Howlett
I have said on many occasions that I support membership of the single market. How achievable that is will ultimately be for the Government to negotiate with the EU but, fundamentally, businesses—not just in my constituency, but in the devolved nations—would suffer from a reduction in access to the single market. It is the same with the customs union. One thing missing from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was a consideration of possible cost implications and of how ports might lose out if we leave the customs union.
Now is not the time to slow down any investment in our transport sector, as we heard today from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With finance still needed for projects in my constituency such as the A36/46 link road and the completion of the electrification of the great western main line, the Government must commit to continuing any lost investment that currently flows from our membership of the European Union.
I hope that today’s debate will give the Government an opportunity to increase transport investment across the south-west as a whole. While there was welcome news in the autumn statement, there is a real opportunity over the next few years to address the imbalance. It was disappointing that a recent Institute for Public Policy Research report concluded that the south-west had the second lowest transport investment per capita and per commuter of anywhere in England. Without wishing to give too much credibility to counter-factual history, I question whether greater investment by the EU in transport infrastructure in the south-west would have led to more residents voting to remain part of the EU.
Transport is one of the EU’s most strategic common policies, and on many occasions we have been the driver for change in this area. Following our exit from the European Union, I hope that the Government will continue to invest heavily in the transport sector while maintaining our commitments to air quality and the environment.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a welcome and timely debate. Transport is vital to all that we do, whether it be the functioning of our economy or people engaging in a good life. It matters to everything we do, but there has been little discussion in public or in Parliament about the implications for transport of our exit from the European Union. In this short debate, I want to flag up a number of issues where there are concerns, some of which have gone unanswered. I shall also seek some further information from the Minister about how these issues are being addressed.
At the beginning of the debate, the Secretary of State made some fairly anecdotal remarks about how he was dealing with some of the issues of concern that have been raised. He referred to meetings that he has had with Ministers at conferences and said that he hoped to meet the President-elect of the USA shortly to discuss some of these issues with him. However, there is a more basic question.
Yes, there are big questions about how the negotiations might be conducted and what the Government’s objectives might be, but one key question is whether the negotiations on transport will be conducted in their own right or only as part of much wider negotiations, so that nothing agreed for transport will be finalised until there is agreement on all the issues involved in our leaving the EU. I have not heard that question properly discussed, but it is an issue of concern. Some transport issues might appear to be negotiated, but they could somehow be lost or given away as part of some bigger negotiation where other factors are under discussion. That is a fundamental issue and I would like to hear more answers from the Government about that. Providing an answer to that question is not really giving away a negotiating position; it is telling us how seriously the Government as a whole view transport issues. It might provide a guide on how far we should pursue some of the matters that have been raised today and that are likely to be raised again.
Members have talked about how different sectors of transport—road, rail, air and sea—might be affected. I shall come on to some of those later. There are also important cross-cutting matters to which very little attention has been given when it comes to Brexit. What of passengers’ rights, for example? Complex compensation packages are being negotiated in Europe, and I believe that one of them was either finalised recently or is nearing completion. It is not at all clear how that would affect British citizens. Would they be covered by those compensation packages, now or in the future? We simply do not know.
What about security matters? Reference has been made to cross-channel transport, of which security is an important aspect. How will that be affected? We have heard little about it. Environmental issues are very broad, but they certainly include transport. How will that affect us?
During the Transport Committee’s recent investigation of the Volkswagen scandal, attention was focused on vehicle type approval, the European system for assessing vehicles in terms of their environmental impact, performance and safety. Although the Volkswagen episode—the Volkswagen scandal;—I must keep using that word, because a scandal is what it was—did highlight some deficiencies in the system, it is important to recognise the importance of having a cross-European system for vehicle type approval. There might be a need to strengthen or change it in certain ways, but having it does matter. How would we be affected in that regard? Would the United Kingdom still be involved? Would we still be party to the system? Would we be partners in it, influencing what happened? Again, we simply do not know.
The question of accessibility to transport for disabled people has been raised briefly, in relation to the blue badge scheme. That scheme, which is very effective and very important here, has a European counterpart. What would happen to that? Has any thought been given to the issue, and has there been any discussion about it? There is a wider question. European directives call for proper access to buses, coaches and trains for disabled people to be implemented by 2020, and European legislation has driven improvements in their access to public transport. Will we still be involved in that, or will the United Kingdom decide that there is some get-out clause so that we do not have to continue to give proper attention to the matter? I hear little about that in the public arena.
Sometimes we are all so involved in talking about the major strategic issues—which are, of course, extremely important—that we forget about the practical issues, but they must not be lost. One way of ensuring that they are not lost in discussions about many other issues is to keep raising them in the House and, indeed, elsewhere.
A number of Members have drawn attention to the aviation sector, which in itself illustrates the importance of the possible impact on the sector of our exit from the European Union, and the importance of the sector itself. Aviation is vital to the economy as a whole, and to business and tourism specifically. In 2015, UK aviation transported 251 million passengers and contributed £1 billion a week to the UK economy, and it supports 1 million jobs. It is not just about transport, either. It is about skills, development, and a wide range of employment. It is literally a gateway to Europe and to the world. The UK currently has agreements to fly with 155 countries, 42 of which have air services agreements through our membership of the EU. That arrangement is critical. What will happen to it?
There are three broad areas of concern relating to aviation that require proper negotiation and a proper solution, rather than the uncertainty that currently hovers over the whole issue, causing great concern in the aviation sector and among the people employed in it. First, the single European aviation market allows EU registered airlines to have a base in another EU state and operate services between other member states and within them. It promotes growth and has reduced fares. It is critical. There may be an answer to what will happen to that as an alternative to our current arrangements. Are we going to consider joining the European common aviation area—we would be able to do that—or is the answer bilateral agreements? We simply do not know, and not knowing causes great uncertainty. It will affect business decisions being made by airlines now about where they want to locate. These are critical decisions about aviation and the people employed in the sector.
Drew Hendry
On business indecision, does the hon. Lady agree that businesses are openly saying that they are having difficulty now with their business plans and are absolutely terrified of getting no forward vision from the UK Government about how things are going to work in the future, which is impacting directly on investment?
Mrs Ellman
I do agree. That is a key area of discussion within the aviation sector. It is why it is so critical that this is addressed. There is great uncertainty. There might be a solution, but we need to move further on it.
The second area of concern within the aviation sector is the transatlantic aviation agreement, and particularly the EU-US open skies policy agreed in 2007. There are many aspects to that, including that EU airlines can operate to the US from any point in the EU. EU airlines can also lease aircraft to US airlines for use on international routes from the United States to any third country. That was opposed for a long time by the US authorities, but it is now agreed and it is extremely important not just for aviation itself but for this country and—I go back to the common theme of my speech—for employment in the sector and the retention of high-level skills. Will this agreement continue? The general view appears to be that it will, as it is too valuable and important to everyone for it not to continue, but again there is uncertainty. Is that being addressed?
The third aspect of concern is European airspace strategy. The use of airspace is critical and too often when we talk about aviation and runway capacity we do not think properly about airspace strategy. That matters, however; it matters in terms of efficiency and the environment. Capacity and efficiency have been added through having the single European sky. Will that continue in its current form? Will it be part of the negotiating process? Will the functional air blocks—UK and Ireland—be retained? How will this operate? It seems to be so critical that it has to carry on, but in what form, and how will the UK be involved?
I wanted to flag up those three areas of concern. They are well known—I am not saying they are being ignored—but my plea is that we need to know what progress is being made.
Ports are vital because 90% of the UK’s trade goes by sea, and the EU is the UK’s largest single trading partner. Yes, there are global markets and the maritime sector is global as well as European, but Europe is extremely important to it. It cannot be looked at in isolation. Access to the single European market is important to the maritime sector. What impact will discussions on that have on discussions about the ports and the maritime sector? How will changes in access to the single market affect shipping with Europe? Will there be new and complex tariffs? Will there be customs checks? How will transmodal movements be affected? Will there be complexity in paperwork, tariffs and customs? Nobody knows what is going to happen. Some solution has to be found as soon as possible, and the sector needs to know what is happening. We have had silence on these matters for much too long.
There are many other transport issues involved in our exit from the EU that are causing great concern. I have identified just these few issues today because they are critical to the UK’s future. They are important for our trade, for jobs and for the retention of skills, and I urge the Government to get more involved in those sectors and give us more information about what is happening. These transport issues might not be flagged up in the newspapers every day, but they matter a great deal to our economy and to the people of the UK.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I have written in my notes the words “road”, “rail”, “aviation” and “the water”, and I feel that she and I have some common—perhaps watery—ground on these matters. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House that it is vital to address the issue of climate change, and I shall focus unashamedly today on how that affects my constituency. Anyone who enters Eastleigh will see the words “Tackling climate change” on the sign, but that feels like a strange irony for anyone sitting in queueing traffic there.
Today we are debating the importance of transport in relation to exiting the European Union. I have been contacted by the Irish embassy, as well as by the States of Jersey and Guernsey, about the vital role played by Southampton airport in trading links between those areas and the UK, and we must now consider how we will work with them in a post-Brexit environment.
Today’s autumn statement has sought to tackle infrastructure deficit and improve our productivity. We have heard from the Chancellor that Departments will—rightly, in my view—meet the Government’s objectives by working with Members, communities, local councils and the devolved Administrations to enable them to tackle key decisions on their priorities and projects locally. I welcome this. I have had meetings in my area to discuss what is affecting the gross value added there. I have already indicated to the Secretary of State that the missing infrastructure in my patch is affecting our productivity. My constituency and those of my fellow Hampshire Members are affected by missing junctions on the M27 and queues on the M3, for example, and I know that the Department would like to focus on working with Highways England to make the area a better place for commuting and for getting around.
This week, the Secretary of State spoke to people working with regional airports, and I welcome the feedback that I have had from Southampton airport on his energy and positivity for the sector and for regional airports, which came through very strongly. We have heard questions raised in the Chamber this afternoon about air passenger tax in relation to our exit from the EU. I ask the Secretary of State to continue to work positively in this area, because that does translate and it does matter. Air passenger duty is a key issue for those travelling through my constituency, whether on business or for leisure purposes. Better connectivity from Southampton airport is also key for heading up to Heathrow or Gatwick. I have also heard from the Irish embassy that Ireland is benefiting from the new route between Southampton and Cork, from where passengers can take transatlantic flights. A clearer future, given the opportunities at Heathrow, is important to that connectivity and to my constituency.
Some 50% of people in my patch travel out for work, generally making a journey of around 12 miles. One would think that that is a short journey, but it can often take about an hour and a half to get from Eastleigh to Southampton or to travel by train between the two cities of Portsmouth and Southampton. I ask Ministers to meet me in due course to look at roads such as the Chickenhall link road, which will tackle pollution and queues, unlock potential sustainable housing sites and provide the opportunity for Southampton airport to get a longer runway, so that bigger planes are able to travel from my patch and people are given a real choice when it comes to getting around.
I am delighted by the opportunities provided by the autumn statement’s infrastructure boost, including, on a basic level for getting around, the seventh successive freeze in fuel duty. Families in my area do not have a choice and must travel by car. East-west connectivity is a challenge and I welcome the continued negotiations on the new rail franchise, because issues with getting between Portsmouth and Southampton in less than an hour are hampering people’s ability to benefit from the opportunities offered by being so close to the port of Southampton. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that ports are absolutely key. Southampton represents an opportunity for local success for new businesses springing up in Eastleigh. We must continue to consider water safety as we exit the EU. People want to see marine patrols when they are out and about and to feel secure in the post-Brexit environment.
I look forward to working with the local enterprise partnership, Hampshire County Council and other local departments and areas to ensure that Eastleigh continues to grow and thrive given the opportunities provided by the £1.1 billion for local transport networks. I say to the Department for Transport that such funds could be deployed in my patch to help with much-needed connectivity, to battle air pollution and to increase productivity. I welcome this afternoon’s debate and the interesting points made around the Chamber about air passenger duty, ports and connectivity. I look forward to working positively with the Department based on today’s autumn statement and the opportunities for local infrastructure across Hampshire.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and other hon. and right hon. Members have made clear in this welcome debate, Brexit has huge implications for our whole transport network, but I want to focus on the rail freight sector. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not include rail freight as one of his priorities, and I suspect that the rail freight industry will be disappointed, too. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope he will reassure us that the Government take the industry’s concerns seriously.
I have previously raised in the House the situation of DB Cargo UK, a company with headquarters in my constituency that has recently announced 893 redundancies. In a letter to the trade union ASLEF, the company said that as well as falling demand from the coal and steel industries, Brexit has caused a slowdown in demand for the movement of freight by rail. I have discussed the problems facing the rail freight industry with the relevant trade unions and also this week met the chief executive officer of DB Cargo UK, Hans-Georg Werner. I hope Members and the Minister will agree that rail freight is a key service for those doing business in the UK, enabling the import and export of goods through ports and the channel tunnel and, crucially, the movement of goods within the UK. Rail freight depends on the total volume of UK trade as well as the modal share between rail and road. It is a good barometer of the health of the economy as a whole.
Andy McDonald
Does my right hon. Friend agree that sustaining the rail freight industry is vital for the maintenance of the infrastructure itself and that we neglect that issue at our peril?
Dame Rosie Winterton
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely correct point. That is why we need to use this debate to highlight some of the infrastructure issues we face and to try to tease out of the Minister what the autumn statement might mean for the rail freight industry.
At the moment, the Government are giving little clarity as to what they are looking for from future trade agreements, but it is clear that some options, particularly those with increased trade tariffs, could be challenging for the UK market as a whole and for rail freight in particular. We know that uncertainty about what trade agreements will be reached in those Brexit negotiations is having a detrimental effect on business. The rail freight industry has been especially affected by the slowdown in the construction industry, where there is a nervousness from investors; as we wait for the Government to set out their negotiating position, investment decisions are being put on hold. Whether we are to remain in the customs union and whether we are to maintain access to the single market could have massive impacts on our customs and excise regime, which would naturally have an impact on points of entry, such as ports.
We must also consider the direct impact of European legislation on the rail freight industry. Much railway legislation derives from European law and provides a number of essential protections for rail freight, for example, on track access and charging. It will be vital that these protections continue in any revised legislation. I know the industry considers it essential that a coherent and holistic approach is taken, with any change in law being specifically linked to a change in Government policy for the railways, rather than having piecemeal changes. That applies to legislation on rail freight through the channel tunnel. Many railway standards are also set at European level, particularly technical standards for interoperability, which aim to improve the cost-effectiveness of railways and the ability to operate across Europe. I hope the Minister can assure me that discussions with the industry are being held about any revisions to infrastructure standards, to protect the ability of freight to operate efficiently.
There is a real need for the Government to provide reassurances to the rail freight sector, so that business confidence remains strong and investment is supported. Rail freight operators need confidence to plan ahead, when buying new wagons, for example, investing in new terminals to support future traffic and looking at expanding in areas such as the automotive industry. Again, the Government need to work closely with the rail freight industry to make this happen and deliver solutions that support growth.
One such solution is, of course, HS2, which has the potential not only to provide business for the rail freight industry during construction, but in the longer term to free up capacity for rail freight. Again, I hope the Minister can assure the House that the Government are talking to the industry about the potential for rail freight in HS2.
There are many other areas of European law that affect the rail freight industry, especially workers’ rights and environmental legislation. Workers’ rights and protection are particularly important in this industry not least because of safety considerations—something of which we are too well aware at the current time. I hope that the Minister can assure me that he is discussing these issues with the relevant trade unions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, made some very good points with regard to environmental legislation. Rail freight is vital in cutting emissions, and we need assurances that, once we have left the European Union, we will mirror agreements under the EU and work actively to help the industry by investing, through Network Rail, in projects that increase capacity, improve connectivity and encourage intermodal solutions to help cut emissions. I hope that, in the process of doing that, we will look across Europe for good examples. In Austria, for instance, I understand that subsidies are available for trains that carry road freight vehicles, and we need to consider whether we should be emulating such practices as we go forward. Will the Minister tell us what planning has been done to improve not only freight productivity, but that link with environmental targets?
On the autumn statement, will the Minister tell us what its implications are for the rail freight industry? I am not sure whether I heard the words “rail freight” mentioned during the statement. I know that the Chancellor said that it will be about departmental decisions, but, again, because the Secretary of State did not mention it in his opening remarks, can the Minister shed a little light on what he thinks the Department is looking at with regard to rail freight, and also what the process will be for coming to those decisions? Investment was talked about, but we need to see that applied to the rail freight industry.
As we have seen today, the process of leaving the European Union will be complicated, fraught with uncertainty and might have considerable unforeseen consequences for our economy’s productive capacity. The need to secure the most advantageous deal for business is understood, but of course the shape of that deal is what will be contested over the coming months. I hope that we can agree that there is an overriding need to reduce uncertainty for business as a whole and for the rail freight sector in particular. It is essential that the Government have serious discussions with the rail freight industry and the unions, which represent those who work in the industry, about the post-Brexit future, so that the best possible outcome of Brexit negotiations can be achieved. Again, I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be unequivocal about his commitment to openness, transparency and the fullest possible consultation with all those involved in this vital industry.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Well, here we are, four months on from Brexit—[Interruption.] My apologies, it is five months. That is not a good start. We have heard from several Members about the many challenges that still face us, and I do accept that there will be some opportunities. Let us look at one element of the Government’s transport strategy and what they consider to be an achievement: the deal that they managed to secure with the car manufacturer, Volkswagen, following the emissions cheating scandal. The United States of America will receive around $1.5 billion in compensation from Volkswagen. Last week, the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box, with an enormous grin on his face, heralding the fact that he has managed to secure a miserable £1 million. Madam Deputy Speaker, do not lose heart in the Minister, because he also informed the House that he would receive the cheque in time for Christmas. If that is a success, I do not what a failure looks like. It does not exactly inspire confidence in me when these are the people charged with the Brexit negotiations.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
One hopes that it will be this Christmas, I say to my colleague on the Transport Committee.
I wish to focus my remarks on emissions and the vehicle industry. Although there are challenges, there are indeed opportunities in this field, and I do not necessarily mean just in terms of trade, but in terms of the governance of the industry. For too long—I say this as someone who passionately voted to remain in the EU—the industry has been operating in an almost wild west-like culture, where money talks; and it talks quite a lot, particularly for German car manufacturers. For all that we are proud of the British car industry—of course we are—the German car industry has something that we will never have, or the French or Japanese car industry will never have: the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. If we look through the lobbying register, we see that the big German manufacturers spend more on lobbying in Brussels than all the other manufacturers put together—and, my goodness, they get what they are after.
Sir William Cash
Is there not a really serious problem with the manner in which the Volkswagen emissions disaster was handled? This is about not just efficiency but manipulation.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and that is what I am coming to. The Government now have the opportunity to get a new regime on emissions and safety standards that does not allow the kind of manipulation that he mentions to take place. We can have a situation where car manufacturers do not manipulate test vehicles—for example, by taping up air conditioning units, by changing the wheels and by using all sorts of creative means—so that they get around emissions standards. If they can do that in one EU country, they get away with it in all EU countries. Even though we in the United Kingdom have now chosen to leave the EU, the EU must get a grip on that. So here is the opportunity: the Minister and the Department for Transport can now set up a regime that the EU can aspire to. But for over a year now, the Department’s response to this issue does not exactly fill me with confidence. They could do the same with a new safety standards regime. They could create a new gold standard that even countries such as the United States could aspire to. I guess that the proof of the pudding will ultimately be in the eating.
Members will be familiar with the Vauxhall car fire scandal, with more than 300 Vauxhall Zafira cars catching fire here in the UK. Many of them have done so within about 30 seconds of their engines failing. Let us think about that model of car. The Zafira is a family car. It tends to be used by parents on the school run, during the summer holidays and so on. The people affected tend to have children, and many of them have been in touch with me and other members of the Transport Committee, which has discussed the issue. The Government’s response, in public at least, has almost been to wash their hands of it. I am amazed that the Government are not required to take the issue more seriously. Perhaps we could have new consumer protections relating to vehicle standards, and better compensation standards for consumers. Perhaps we could aspire to standards that even the European Union could aspire to one day.
We do not want to continue with the same system—perhaps EU regulation-lite—whereby we become just another island that is manipulated by an industry in which money talks far too often, and public health interests and consumer interests take a back seat. In addition to all the challenges that the Government face in maritime, freight and air policy, this is one area where the British public are fed up with big business riding roughshod over consumer interests. They will judge the Government on how they respond to the opportunity that Brexit has delivered to put consumers first, rather than to those big vehicle manufacturers.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
My constituency voted overwhelmingly—62.2%—to leave the EU, despite the fact that with its large agricultural hinterland it receives huge European farm subsidies, and with its manufacturing base it benefits from the opportunity to manufacture and export to the EU. It also has a huge travel base. It is a tourism mecca, and tourists need travel infrastructure. So it is engaged in manufacturing, travel, tourism and transport goods, but despite all that, it voted to leave the EU, and we must ask ourselves why.
Why would so many people in that set of circumstances vote to leave? It is because the EU is seen to be failing them. When we look specifically at transport issues, we can see why. Before we even discuss the EU, there are many things that we could do domestically to assist companies in the transport sector in our country. For example, in my constituency we manufacture buses. The Wrights Group manufactures a considerable number of the buses for this great city and for Scotland—indeed, it recently enjoyed a very beneficial order from Scotland, for which we say thank you to our Scottish cousins. It also manufactures for Singapore and a number of other Asian countries, and employs hundreds of people in Singapore in the assembly of those buses and, importantly, in the maintenance of those buses. It is a significant local employer and a world employer.
The company can benefit more from domestic decisions taken here than it can from EU decisions taken in Brussels. For example, the Government’s Bus Services Bill currently going through Parliament will have a dramatic impact on transport orders for my constituency if it goes the right way. We also have—I say this very gently to those on the Labour Front Bench—a new Mayor of London. I appeal to him through his Front Bench colleagues to come to Northern Ireland as soon as possible to visit that bus company, which transports his citizens around his city, and see the great work that it could do to expand the bus offer in London. I understand that between now and 2021 London will require another 1,000 buses. I hope that that transport infrastructure will benefit from buses manufactured in my constituency. I wanted to put that on the record before I turn to the substance of the debate.
When the Secretary of State opened the debate, he was full of confidence and optimism. I share that optimism. We should approach the issue of transport and Brexit with some optimism because there are opportunities that can be beneficial to us.
There is one issue that could have been addressed in the Chancellor’s statement today. I hope that the Transport Secretary will continue to whisper “airport passenger duty” in his ear between now and the Budget in April. I hope he will keep pushing that little issue. We should not be paying a pernicious, dirty little tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to transport ourselves from one part of the UK to another. It is wrong. It is not the sort of tax that our Government should be levying, and it should be removed soon. I hope that the Chancellor will hear that not just from me but from the Transport Secretary between now and the Budget.
Many people, including our neighbours in the EU, complain about Brexit. We hear it every day and read about it in the newspapers, but those of us who voted to leave the EU did so with a good intention—to bring about good for our country, not bad. I have noticed that those on the remain campaign and those opposed to the action that the United Kingdom is about to take are talking up crisis after crisis—whether a transport crisis or a crisis to do with transport problems with our border in Northern Ireland.
I commend the singular actions of the Secretary of State over the recess. When a crisis emerged in Northern Ireland relating to our one transatlantic fleet operator, United Airlines, it was largely because the Secretary of State got on the telephone to the United States and spoke to the head of the airline and others, pressing them to keep the flights operating in Northern Ireland, that the service was saved.
As a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s conversation with United Airlines and an emergency aid package put in place by the Northern Ireland Executive, involving multiples of millions of pounds, the service was indeed saved—until two weeks ago. Someone in the EU then complained that the actions of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive amounted to state aid and were therefore wrong. They objected so much that Europe has now told United that it must reject the multi-million pound aid package. As a result, the airline is now closing its service; the last flights from Belfast to Newark in the United States of America will take place in January next year. That shameful action needs to go on the record.
Sir William Cash
In the ports sector, as in many others, there are hidden subsidies. Ports over the whole of Europe are publicly owned. Given the money pumped into them, they also represent the lack of a level playing field. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said and what the Secretary of State tried to achieve.
Ian Paisley
I agree; the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the issue extends not only to airports but to seaports as well.
Last week in the House, I pressed the Secretary of State about the United Airlines issue. He kindly said that the decision was “deeply unwelcome” and that a fair amount of effort had been done by his Department, working alongside the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Executive, in trying to make sure that this air route was sustained. He went on to say:
“The loss of the route because of EU action is deeply unwelcome and precisely the kind of unnecessary decision from Brussels that led this country to vote to leave the European Union.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 377.]
I say a hearty “Hear, hear” to those words. That action was pernicious and should not have taken place. The company should have been allowed to continue to operate in Northern Ireland. Many people in County Antrim who have seen the benefits of Europe have turned against it because of such decisions. I am glad that we as a nation have woken up to that.
We have also had the allegation that the Irish Republic—our well-known neighbour—wants to be supportive of Northern Ireland as it leaves the EU. Indeed, it has written to many of the hauliers in Northern Ireland to invite them to a tea party hosted by the Taoiseach in Dublin. He has called it the all-island civic dialogue, and he wishes to have a conversation about the implications of Brexit for the Republic of Ireland. Now, I am quite happy for the Taoiseach to do that, and for him to understand the conversation that is going on, but if he targets businesses in Northern Ireland with a view to getting them to go to the south of Ireland and to crank up opposition to the UK’s decision, that is where I draw the line. I therefore commend the words of our First Minister in Northern Ireland, who said that the Dublin Government are poaching some of our businesses, and that includes our haulage businesses. It is right that this House understands that, while we welcome the opportunity to work with our southern neighbours, we can also see when someone speaks out of both sides of their mouth—on the one hand saying they are concerned about our relationship, but on the other hand doing everything they can to undermine that relationship and poach businesses from us. I think we should put that on the record.
It is also important that we identify those EU transport regulations that hurt British businesses. In an intervention on the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I mentioned the package travel directive. Expedia is an American company that employs over 2,000 people in call centres and outreach centres in the United Kingdom. It is based in England and Scotland, and it will hopefully soon be based in Northern Ireland. That company employs thousands of people, but it is now faced with the package travel directive. Ordinary business and tourism travellers who use sites such as Expedia or trivago as a one-stop shop for their airline ticket, their hotel, their car rental, the shows they wish to attend or other things they wish to book, such as restaurants, will find that this package travel directive, which comes from the EU to protect huge monopolies, will try to pass on a major charge to the companies—Expedia, trivago or others—or, more than likely, to the customer, because they are using a one-stop shop, when they should apparently be encouraged to use several different operators to place their orders. That package travel directive is wrong, and it should be opposed. That is another reason why many people in the United Kingdom see that, in terms of travel arrangements, we would be better off out of the EU.
Drew Hendry
On the point about additional costs to the travelling public, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of the European health passport would mean an increase in insurance costs for UK customers travelling in Europe?
Ian Paisley
I do not know whether that is the case, so I cannot say whether it would or not. I would certainly be happy to look at that, but we need to encourage our own insurance industry—perhaps we will have a debate about the insurance industry and Brexit—to pick up those issues to determine whether there is a way in which we can address them.
Companies such as Expedia are faced with this package travel directive. We need to be alive to the fact that Europe is not a great benefactor of the travel sector and that it is actually doing an awful lot to hinder it.
Sir William Cash
On the general principle that the hon. Gentleman is addressing—the extent to which directives have an adverse effect on certain industries and the national interests of particular countries—is he conscious, as I certainly am, of what is called regulatory collusion? This has been written about by Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim University, who makes it clear that a system is employed in the Council of Ministers and through COREPER whereby decisions are made that benefit certain congregations of countries in a way that is detrimental to others, and that this is not a benign system, but actually the pursuit of national interests in another name.
Ian Paisley
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for making that point. This is about not only helping congregations of countries, but assisting cabals within certain sectors of the industry. For example, the package travel directive helps people who do not use computers to buy their tickets and encourages people to use only shops. I have nothing against travel shops, but they should not be assisted over the heads of people who wish to use the internet to make their bookings. There is a very deliberate attempt to try to destroy that business on the internet.
On road haulage, the Government need to address exporter freight charges. Many of our competitors outside the EU, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and countries in Asia, including India, have opportunities to assist the trade in their manufactured goods by reducing the cost of exporting them around the world. In essence, this is about freight charges, not just internally within their own countries, but externally. Our Government need to decide what assistance that system gives and how, when we eventually leave the EU, our companies can have a similar type of assistance or, more importantly, can be encouraged to get round the advantage that those other countries are given.
Let me give the House a few examples. In Australia, the freight equalisation scheme allows for goods shipped around the world to be subsidised when going to their final destinations. That means that a similar good manufactured in New Zealand, for example, suddenly becomes more expensive because its freight charges are included in its shipping, whereas the Australian good has its freight charge subsidised or, in many instances, wiped out. New Zealand opposed Australia when it introduced that scheme, but it is still in place. India has a freight assistance scheme, as well as an enterprise promotion policy, which is about assisting with freight charges.
If these issues of transport costs are not addressed, when we finally leave the EU and have wider export opportunities, we will find that if we try to get our goods—manufactured goods, foods or drinks—to certain markets, they will be disadvantaged because we do not give them a freight subsidy. I know that the Government do not like the word “subsidy” and that they will have to look at this further, but something should be done to assist with those transport costs. It is important that the Government have that in their mind.
I welcome the debate and the comments by the Secretary of State. It is useful that we continue to prod and examine these issues.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I am feeling a wee bit dizzy because I am not usually so high up the speakers’ list. It is also confusing that there is no limit on our speaking time. Clearly one of the reasons why I have been called so early is the real lack of Back Benchers in the Chamber. Given how many people have told us how bad Europe is and about all the wonderful opportunities that there will be following Brexit, I should have thought that Members would be queuing up to tell us about those opportunities.
Sir William Cash
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is about to become a member of my European Scrutiny Committee, so I simply say that I entirely endorse what he has said. Furthermore, many of the remoaners, and the doomsters and gloomsters, are not here defending the positions that they were taking before—I am not just referring to SNP Members. That is where a lot of the problems lie.
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Clearly we are part of the remainers, and we represent our constituents. The majority of our constituents across Scotland voted to remain, so we must represent them.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made a bit of a play of highlighting opportunities, but really he highlighted some of the problems with the European Union rather than proper opportunities. He seemed to put a lot of faith in the myth that the Government will invest the money that will not be going to Europe. He trusts the Conservative Government to invest that money. He used the word “subsidy”, although he knows full well that no Tory Government ever volunteer to pay money for subsidies.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. I will focus on road transport, but just before I do, I want to go back to the open skies debate. Prestwick airport, which is in one of my neighbouring constituencies, is a big employer for my area as well as for the constituency it is based in. It would be good if the Minister confirmed that Brexit will not affect Ryanair’s flights from Prestwick and tell us what the Government will do to mitigate any effects. I will throw out one opportunity for Prestwick—to be fair, this is not to do with the European Union—which is its potential as a spaceport. It is high time the Government made a decision about that.
As I said, I will focus on road transport. The Secretary of State said quite correctly in his opening speech that road transport affects us all. Given the proportion of goods that are transported by road to shops, road transport is fundamental to the price of goods. According to Government figures, almost three times as many goods are moved by road as are moved by rail and water combined, which shows us that road is the transport king.
That brings us to the question: what has the EU done for road transport? Apart from the harmonisation of licensing, the harmonisation of vehicle design, European Union-wide regulations for the transport of goods, workers’ rights legislation such as the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005, the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, and funding for road schemes in Scotland, the EU has not done much to help road transport.
What else has the EU given us? Apparently, as the guys who are not here continually tell us, the EU has given us endless red tape and regulation. Let us look at how the EU has actually meddled in the pan-European transport of goods by road—this point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). In 1998, a lorry travelling from Milan to London required 88 separate documents. The EU got involved, and after much wrangling, the number of documents now required is one. The number has gone from 88 down to one—that is the red tape that the EU has created for the transport of goods across Europe. In the 1980s, there were 100,000 sets of technical regulations across the member states. Thanks to the EU, they have been consolidated, and there is now one set of EU-level regulations.
We heard about ports earlier. Ports are integral to the import and export of goods for road haulage. As we have heard, ports handle 90% of the UK’s trade. Leaving the EU means that there is a risk that instead of a seamless journey on and off a ferry, there could be extended customs checks, which will slow progress. As we have heard, the infrastructure is not geared up for that, which could mean that ports will require additional parking. Some of the checks need to be repeated for each country that a lorry traverses. Given that the World Bank estimates that the customs clearance process for a single freight container adds around a day to the import process, it is clear that we could face a massive cost and logistics nightmare. Will the Minister therefore confirm that he is fighting for access to the single market and the customs union?
According to the Treasury’s figures, EU membership is estimated to increase trade with EU members by between 68% and 85%. I know that there has been a whole debate about how inflated the figures might or might not be, but even if they are inflated, they still show that there is huge benefit from our membership of the single market.
Has the Secretary of State and/or the Minister discussed the customs union with the automotive industry? At the moment, car components criss-cross the continent before returning for use in final assembly at car plants, so the customs union is a major positive for the automotive industry. The industry is completely appalled by the lackadaisical argument that simply claims that no tariffs will be applied because of the importance of the UK market. It has confirmed that tariffs are its No. 1 concern, so will the Minister touch on that when he sums up?
Nearly 300,000 HGV drivers were employed in the road haulage industry last year. In April 2015, only 1,165 jobseekers recorded their standard occupation as HGV driver, so it is clear that a HGV driver qualification is a pathway to full employment. Even so—we touched on this earlier—the road haulage industry is having to take advantage of EU nationals, using licence harmonisation, to plug the skills gap. There is a predicted shortage of 40,000 HGV drivers by 2020 and the Government do not challenge that figure. That situation will only get worse unless there is a post-Brexit reciprocal licensing arrangement.
I have repeatedly called for the Government to implement a grant scheme to allow small haulage companies to train new HGV drivers. Such a scheme would pay for itself from welfare savings. To date, I have heard nothing from the Government. The Secretary of State said that the idea was with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is responsible for skills in the Department for Transport, but it is time we started hearing some concrete plans.
The last key topic I will touch on is road funding, which is particularly relevant to Scotland. Another dividend of the UK Union that we suffered from in Scotland for many years was a lack of investment in our road systems. It has taken an SNP Government coming to power to really push that agenda, in particular with the new M74 and M80 motorways, and the ongoing £500 million M8, M74 and M73 upgrades. It is ridiculous to think that there has never been a continuous motorway connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow; the SNP Government are having to rectify that.
Drew Hendry
It is not just the motorways my hon. Friend mentions that were neglected for a long time; many connections to rural Scotland such as the A9 were given no attention. The Scottish Government are now dualling the entire A9 between Perth and Inverness.
Alan Brown
I welcome that example and will come on to another shortly.
Investment for the current motorway upgrades came from the European Investment Bank, which drew in other international investment. Will such avenues for investment still be available at affordable rates to the Scottish Government in the future? It would be good if the Minister provided some clarity on that.
Anyone who has travelled to the highlands will know how many roads there are still single track, with passing places for oncoming vehicles. Those roads are lifelines. One example is the Fort William-Mallaig road, the road to the isles, which was completed as a two-lane carriageway only in 2009; previously, it was known as the worst trunk road in Europe. That shows the lack of investment that came to us from Westminster. The upgrade was completed partly with European funding. The allocation included £3 million from the European regional development fund, as well as European transitional fund assistance. That is proof that the EU managed to get money to Scotland that would not have come from direct funding.
Scotland secured a total investment of €941 million from the European structural fund in the 2014 to 2020 programming period. Of that, £14 million has been allocated to the low-carbon travel and transport strategic intervention programme, which helps to fund low-carbon transport hubs and active travel hubs, and £10 million is being invested in the smart cities strategic intervention. ERDF money has also been allocated to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport for various public transport upgrades. What will happen to the money that has not yet been allocated? Again, we do not know, as there are no guarantees from the Government. It is time they started to provide some certainty. The Scotsman reported a couple of days ago that councils in Scotland were worried about the possibility of losing £46 million of EU funding each year. Much of that money goes to local transport-related projects.
I mentioned travel in the highlands earlier and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) touched on it, too. One common sight is busloads of tourists traversing the country. Many rights of passengers, particularly in relation to disabled passengers, are incorporated in regulations covered by EEA membership. Tour operators entering Scotland and the wider UK may choose not to enter the country in the future because EU passengers might not want to have to apply for a visa as part of a tour package.
It can be argued that many of these issues are not insurmountable, but the fact is that 8% of all travel in the EU in 2014 was attributed to buses and coaches, with 6.5% to rail. The Department for Transport gave very little consideration to buses in its “Balance of Competencies” report released ahead of the referendum, despite the volume of regulations in place to protect coach passengers within the EU.
It is clear that EU directives have made our roads safer and protected the rights of HGV drivers. They have made the transport of goods easier, and therefore cheaper, within the customs union. The free movement of goods and people in conjunction with the licence harmonisation process has been vital for the haulage industry. Without it, there would have been market failure by now. There has even been harmonisation of the blue badge system for people with disabilities. Will that be reciprocated post-Brexit? As I outlined, the EU has contributed funds for much-needed road upgrades in Scotland. It is high time the Government understood that Brexit means a lot more than Brexit, and that we want clarity.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am delighted that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), is back in his place, as I just want to point out to him that the much-thumbed Library briefing paper I have been referring to is from 29 June, rather than the one in the Library now.
This issue, on a critical industry, is of great importance. I normally find, when I am called to speak so low down on the list, that almost everything I want to say has already been said. However, one thing that has not been said so far is that we are approximately five-and-a-half weeks away from Christmas. The logistics industry makes Christmas happen. It delivers everything. Yes, of course Santa has his part to play, but without the logistics industry the turkeys, the presents and everything else would not happen. We should put on record what we owe to the people in the industry.
During an intervention earlier I talked about staffing. I am concerned about the level of staffing available in the Department for Transport to consider these important issues. The Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, magazines such as Motor Transport and others are doing a lot of work on the implications of Brexit for some, if not all, of the industry, and I believe they stand ready to help the Department.
As the Minister is in his place, I want to pause to thank him again for the wide-ranging roundtable discussion on skills the other day—a really positive sign for how we can move the whole agenda forward.
I do not want to miss an opportunity to taunt the hon. Member for Stone one more time, so let me say that what has come out of discussions with various sectors of the industry is that a lot of EU legislation is legislation that we wanted in the first place, and, if Members will pardon the pun, it is legislation that we drove forward. The great repeal Bill will not be a great repeal so much as a great domesticisation—if that is a word. It is now.
I will just make a couple of points, rather than delay the House by repeating what has been said many times. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency needs more teeth, particularly when we are exiting the EU. At the moment, there are issues with non-UK hauliers. The Minister kindly wrote to me recently about cabotage and access to the database for the DVSA. The response, with the greatest respect, is not clear. At the moment, a lot of vehicles stopped are not flouting cabotage rules. The DVSA does not have sufficient access to the database to spot the right hauliers. It is just a bit random at the moment.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I am very happy to continue that dialogue and the roundtables, mindful of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Robert Flello
I am very grateful. I know that the Minister takes these issues seriously. The DVSA needs more powers to tackle non-UK hauliers, particularly post-Brexit.
Several colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Select Committee, have talked about vehicle standards, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) talked about standards shopping. It is important that we have a common standard, but it is also important that we stop standards shopping. We should also revisit HGV licensing. Rather than the over-complicated system of C+E licences and all the rest, perhaps it would be better to go back to class 1 and class 2. The certificate of professional competence is another issue that has caused the industry a lot of concerns, problems and difficulties. It is now much more embedded in its culture, but much more work needs to be done in the context of post-Brexit.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun—I have been waiting hours to say that, although I do not know whether I have pronounced it anywhere near correctly—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Have another go: Kil-marn-ock and Loud-oun. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tried very hard. It is not his fault he did not get it quite right.
Robert Flello
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—[Laughter.] Thank you.
Robert Flello
I’m an eighth Welsh actually. But I am conscious of time and do not wish to go down this cul-de-sac any further.
The point about the 88 documents in one is a good one, but there is no reason post-Brexit why we cannot do our utmost to make sure that it is still only one document. That is an important point.
On HS2, I am afraid that I am not such a great fan. [Interruption.] I know it’s hard to be believe. One of my concerns is that, as I understand it, rail freight will not be allowed on the tracks currently being used for HS2. I also have great doubts about whether we can free up enough capacity on other lines, such as the west coast main line. How, for example, will people get from Stoke-on-Trent to Bournemouth? It will be a tortuous journey if they have to take HS2 into London, only to get another train out, rather than using the current service, which will be cut to free up capacity.
There are big issues on road worthiness and tachos, as they relate to the DVSA. It is also important to note that many firms are hiding behind Brexit over things such as fuel costs and blaming Brexit and the dropping pound for keeping the price of fuel artificially high. I urge the Government to take on board the concerns from organisations such as FairFuelUK about the price of fuel.
I will not dwell on the port services directive. It has been dealt with more than is necessary already. On the security of our border, there have been issues around Sangatte at Calais and, more recently, the Jungle at Calais. This problem might well recur in the future so we need to make sure that we have a good relationship with the French, particularly in northern France.
Members have raised a host of other things, but, you will be delighted to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not wish to repeat them. I do, however, wish to draw attention to the issue of state aid. In the past, we have seen many airlines funded by other European nations flouting state aid rules, paying the penalty but saving their airlines in the meantime. All too often there has been a willingness among some of our European counterparts to flout state aid rules when it suits them, get the desired outcome and then face the consequences, when, frankly, it is irrelevant, because the issue has been resolved.
I will not detain the House any longer. I am keen to hear the Front-Bench responses, and I think there is one more speaker before that. I go back to my opening comments: the logistics industry is not just important or fairly fundamental to the UK; it is the UK. Without the logistics sector, the UK would cease to exist, nothing would happen; the clothes we wear, the food we eat—it would all end. So we have to accept the fact that transport is absolutely at the heart of the UK. We need to make sure that, post-Brexit, we get the best possible deal for the transport sector.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his winding-up speech. I hope that, like me, he takes to his heart the fact that the transport sector—and, for me, logistics in particular—is the UK’s first and foremost industry. We have to make sure that it is protected. Let us get to work on it, taking help from wherever it is offered.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Having sat through this debate, it has to be said that, once again, we are not much further forward. That applies to transport as it does to every portfolio area. To be fair, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) providing an all too rare progressive view from the Conservative Benches on maintaining membership of the single market. After all, that is critical for Scotland’s economy and for the UK’s economy, just as the four freedoms are critical for future success. These areas are vital for growth when this reckless gamble is putting our country at risk.
I give credit where credit is due, and it has been good to see in his place the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) standing up for his beliefs as usual. Seeing him in his place is all too rare these days, as it is for others who backed the campaign to leave. It is very much a tale of two Governments in these islands. North of the border we have had a Government making clear their plans on membership of the single market, freedom of movement and the status of European nationals who contribute so much to our economy. That compares with the continued nothing that we have seen from the United Kingdom Government.
The Secretary of State, who is not in his place—I apologise, he seems to have returned—has to bear some responsibility. He was a member of a Government who campaigned to leave the European Union, yet did absolutely no preparation for the decision that was eventually taken. That was an act of gross irresponsibility during the campaign, and it continues because he has nothing to say five months on.
I have in my hand an example of what preparation looks like—670 pages of a White Paper prepared during the independence referendum.
Alberto Costa
Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell the Secretary of State and other Members what currency Scotland would have used had it voted for independence?
Stephen Gethins
Here we go! We were so well prepared that that is not just in the White Paper—I know the hon. Gentleman has read it—but we even had a fiscal commission working group. We had 670 pages of the White Paper and a fiscal commission working group setting out three options, including sharing the currency, which one Minister said that we would, of course, be able to do—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, that compares to tumbleweed—absolutely nothing—from the Government.
The Secretary of State might want to take notes, because there were 15 pages on transport alone in our White Paper. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) will be pleased to hear, it set out the areas for high-speed rail. It makes much more sense if high-speed rail goes through to Edinburgh and Glasgow, rather than just to Birmingham. The benefits of specialist transport organisations were mentioned, too.
Ian Paisley
How many of the 600 and more pages started with the words “could”, “maybe” or “might”?
Stephen Gethins
To be fair, a lot more than in the Government’s plans about the EU referendum. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on that, as usual. There were a lot more “coulds”, “woulds” or “maybes” than in the Government’s preparatory documents.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will be pleased to hear that the Government must have been reading our White Paper, because there was talk about the benefits of transitional agreements. Clearly, on the basis of recent press reports of the Government’s plans, they are taking to heart ideas about transitional agreements, which have come straight from the White Paper on Scottish independence. There is also talk about working with our European partners and the EU, where it has responsibility. Of course, Government Members told us that if people voted for Scottish independence, we would not be in the European Union and that the only way to guarantee membership was to vote no. What happened there? The point is that co-operating with Europe is vital.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) has returned to the Chamber. She raised the critical issues of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we have many reasons to be grateful for co-operation with our European partners. Everyone who has survived this debate so far continues to benefit from the European Union air quality directives every moment of every day. As for climate change, Scotland’s world-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which smashed its targets when Conservative Members said we could not achieve them, is much closer to Brussels policy than legislation in this place. We have allies and friends who take a similar view.
There is also an important point to be made about the single market. As the Member of Parliament representing, for instance, Pittenweem, Oban and Peterhead, I notice that articulated lorries from European Union countries take fine Scottish seafood to markets across the EU. Driver licensing for EU nationals is especially important in rural areas, be they in the borders, in North East Fife, in Northern Ireland or in the highlands. We want to make those people feel at home, because they contribute so much. Will that licensing continue? Will we continue to have the harmonisation that we have enjoyed?
Our geography in Scotland makes airports and air links very important to us, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government have managed to secure 23 new routes since 2014. We benefit from that, and so do other people. Who would not want to spend their holidays in North East Fife? I am sure that you would, Madam Deputy Speaker, and have done so as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out that Prestwick was nearby. Just the other day, Michael O’Leary said that the UK Government did not have a clue, and it is hard to disagree with him.
European funding for research and development has been and continues to be critical. We need to develop clean, green technologies, and Scotland is well placed for that. Currently, Horizon 2020 has a smart, green and integrated transport fund which is worth €6.5 billion. We need to start planning now for what will happen after 2020. Perhaps Ministers will provide certainty by telling us what their plans are.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that Scotland is closer to Brussels in so many policy areas. Transport is just one of them.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
In transport, as in virtually every other area of policy, challenges are presented by the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) did an excellent job in outlining some of the issues, notably rail freight. May I say what a pleasure it is to hear her voice ring out in the Chamber again? I am sure that her constituents, as well as all Members, welcome it.
Fascinatingly, the Transport Secretary has said that transport will be prioritised in Brexit negotiations. His comment suggests that the Government have developed a plan. If the Government have set such a priority and have decided which areas of policy concern them most, perhaps they could share the outcome of their deliberations with the House of Commons. The British people want to know.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said that the Government’s plan was an empty vessel, a point well made. He referred to the Titanic and the Mary Celeste. We must ensure that, unlike those fated vessels, the good ship Brexit sails safely into harbour, although I expect that the waters are likely to be choppy. A failure to conclude negotiations on a deal within the article 50 timetable of two years would be catastrophic for British industry. The Government do not give the impression that they accept this reality and the seriousness of this threat. Will the Minister confirm that he wants to establish a transitional agreement with the EU to prevent aviation and other industries from going over a cliff edge? My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) rightly challenged the Government to explain whether transport will be negotiated in isolation or as part of a wider deal. Not only do we not know what is going to be done, but we do not know how it is to be done either.
Aviation agreements are not covered under the scope of the World Trade Organisation, so there is no WTO deal to fall back on if a specific aviation agreement is not reached. It is vital that our regional airports, which rely heavily on overseas carriers for international routes, are fully involved in all future negotiations to ensure that the wider interests of the regions are not overlooked. Will the Minister confirm that this will happen?
On our railways, there is a danger that funding gaps will not be filled. UK rail projects receive EU funding as direct funding or as loans. Will the Government commit to match this funding penny for penny? In response to a series of interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), we watched the Secretary of State twitching on the end of a line, and I advise him that my hon. Friend is unlikely to let this issue go. I can guarantee that the Secretary of State will not hear the end of it.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
On the Welsh context of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) raised and also on road infrastructure, EU funding has been a huge asset for heads of the valleys roads and roads across south Wales. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) agree that it is important that the Department for Transport secures that funding for road infrastructure so that the Welsh Government can continue to deliver those improvements for roads across the south Wales valleys?
Jenny Chapman
That is completely right, and I think the First Minister for Wales—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—has requested that the funding promised be matched penny for penny. Or will this cash go the same way as the £350 million a week for the NHS, and disappear like a smoke ring from one of Nigel Farage’s cigars?
Rail fares have gone up by over a quarter since the Tories came to power in 2010, which is more than twice as fast as wage growth. There is a danger that the economic consequences of Brexit will mean yet another fare hike for commuters. What are the Government prepared to do to stop fares becoming even less affordable for passengers?
I am going to give credit for this next statistic to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello): over 90% of UK international trade in weight passes through UK ports. UK ports directly employ more than 25,000 people and the sector contributes more than £7 billion to the UK economy. Like every other sector, our ports need to know how the Government intend to proceed. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) explained that the proposed port services regulations are deeply unpopular with UK ports, but it is far from clear that the UK leaving the EU will mean that our ports are not going to be subject to these regulations all the same. In fact, the UK Government’s ability to influence the regulations to suit British ports is now virtually nil. How are the Government going to protect our magnificent ports sector?
Similarly, our road haulage sector faces uncertainty as a result of Brexit, and there is no one with more passion for this issue than my hon. Friend. He challenged the Government to ensure that they are adequately staffed to support the haulage sector through the Brexit period.
I do not want to be negative about Brexit, but we are kidding ourselves by pretending that these challenges do not exist or are somehow straightforward to resolve. We need to be up front and honest with the British people about this. The Government should perhaps use these debates to inform the House, and also perhaps do so through the publication of position papers beforehand outlining the Government’s priorities. Today’s debate has been interesting, but I do not think that anyone will leave the Chamber any clearer about the Government’s position on these issues. We are not going to obstruct article 50. We have made that commitment very clear, but I suggest to the Minister that there is now a moral imperative for the Government to act in good faith and to share their priorities and plans with the British people and with this House.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
This has been an excellent debate and I should like to express my personal thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. It is clear that everyone realises the centrality of transport to our economy, and it is therefore entirely right that the issue should be debated at length and in detail today. This has been the second in a series of debates on important issues arising in the context of the negotiations to leave the European Union that were promised by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. It will help to inform our consideration of these important issues as we prepare for the negotiations.
Jenny Chapman
If these debates are so valuable and informative, perhaps the Minister could give the House an example of how his considerations will have been moved on by what he has heard today.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady will find that out as I proceed with my response. She has to understand that at the moment we are engaged in a process of consultation with not only colleagues here in Parliament but representatives of industry and the wider civil society. Frankly, anyone sensible would expect the Government to be engaging in this sort of consultation and I make no apologies for doing so.
As the Secretary of State for Transport made clear, the Government fully recognise the central role that transport will play. Our transport links with Europe—and, indeed, the rest of the world—are crucial to this nation’s prosperity, and as we develop a new relationship with the EU we are determined to maintain efficient networks that build on the excellent connectivity that we already have around the world. This debate has certainly highlighted some of the challenges that this country faces in the process of the negotiations, but it has also highlighted opportunities. As I have said, this has been an important exercise in helping to inform our position.
I want to touch on some of the important issues that have been raised. My hon. Friend made a point about the port services regulation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the Commission’s proposal in relation to the regulation was clearly aimed at the continental subsidised public sector landlord model and did not sit at all well with the United Kingdom’s thoroughly commercial, diverse and predominantly private sector model. In effect, the United Kingdom’s ports stood to be penalised for having led the way in liberalisation since the 1980s. Our experience shows that competition between ports drives efficiency and investment.
We have engaged successfully with the European institutions to prevent our being penalised in that way, and the near-final text of the regulation is considerably less onerous that what was first proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, this is a good example of how Brexit will enable us to regain control over issues that are important to the UK economy. We must also remember that we will be promoting the great repeal Bill. When enacted, it will absorb the entire corpus of EU law into the body of British law, which will enable us to review that law and repeal or amend it as appropriate. I imagine that he will regard this particular regulation as being ripe for repeal.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Will the Minister tell us how many of them will relate to transport?
Mr Jones
That will of course be a matter for this Parliament. This is about the entire issue of regaining control, which we do not have at the moment. Once we regain control, it will be this Parliament that makes such decisions.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) exhibited a nice line in transport-related puns, for which I compliment him. He raised the important issue of the effects of leaving the EU on business and travellers. My Department is currently engaging closely with businesses right across this sector and 50 others with a view to gauging their concerns and the opportunities. I apologise that I cannot respond to all the issues he mentioned, but trans-Atlantic routes was an important one. I recently had an interesting discussion with Airlines for America, which clearly has an equal interest in the matter from the other direction. That is an example of the fact that third countries will also play a part in the process. As part of the Department’s consultation, we are engaging with interlocutors not only from Britain but from the continent and third countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) raised several issues, including vehicle emissions. EU environmental law will be fully absorbed into our own corpus of law and we can then decide what arrangements we make with regard to that legislation, including confirming it if necessary.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, referred to several important matters, some of which I will touch on. She asked what would be the future arrangements for setting standards for new vehicles, and the Department for Transport is focused on that question. Many vehicle standards are actually shaped in United Nations bodies, and the EU absorbs them into EU law. That process would therefore be absorbed into our domestic law as part of the great repeal Bill process. She mentioned access to the single market, which remains a top priority for the Government. We want to secure the best possible access to the single market—consistent with our other priorities as a Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) raised several important constituency issues, including Southampton airport. She welcomed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s infrastructure announcements, which will provide a major boost for this country’s transport infrastructure.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) focused her remarks on rail freight. We recognise that rail freight is an important part of the issue that we are considering today, and I can tell her that representatives of the rail freight industry have participated at round-table discussions held with the rail industry more generally by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.
Dame Rosie Winterton
Are Ministers also having meetings with the trade unions who represent members in the rail freight industry?
Mr Jones
What I can say is that the Department encourages the trade unions, as it does every other part of the community, to contribute to the consultation that we are currently holding. I suggest that the right hon. Lady encourages them to contact us.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who pronounced himself to be a passionate supporter of the remain campaign, made a remarkably Eurosceptic speech, in which he raised the issue of Volkswagen and what he described as a “scandal”—many in this House would agree with that. As I have said previously, when the great repeal Bill comes through, the EU legislation will be absorbed into our own body of legislation and we can then amend it. It will be up to this Parliament to decide whether it wishes to improve on the current arrangements, and I discern from his remarks that that is something he would welcome.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made an upbeat speech, in which he identified a number of opportunities arising from Brexit. He raised the issue of the package travel directive, and all I would say in response is that we are aiming at a new state of affairs, under which this Parliament can make decisions such as that and not simply accept the directives that come from the EU.
Ian Paisley
Is the Minister at a point yet to make a commitment that that directive will never come into force?
Ian Paisley
As a person called Paisley, I have never once been told that no one can hear me—I apologise profusely. Can the Minister make a commitment at this point, or at some time in the future, that that directive will never come into force?
Mr Jones
I think the answer to that is that it depends on how quickly we complete our withdrawal from the EU and on what this Parliament decides to do. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be a strong advocate for its non-acceptance of that directive.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) made a contribution relating, inter alia, to the spaceport that he hopes will be located at Prestwick. I had ambitions for north Wales, but I am sure we will both be happy wherever it is located. He also raised the issues of road freight and customs checks, both of which are certainly being taken into account by my Department and by the Department for Transport in the context of our EU exit negotiations.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) raised the issue of the importance of logistics. I understand that he is the chairman of the all-party group on freight transport, and he has raised a number of these issues in round-table meetings that have been arranged by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has undertaken to maintain that dialogue.
Finally, we heard a contribution from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who spoke about the Scottish referendum.
This has been an important and valuable debate. As I say, it has helped to inform the consideration of my Department and the DFT, and we will continue to hold similar engagements both within this Parliament and with stakeholders from outside the EU. [Interruption.] I make no apologies—I hear the catcalls from Labour Front Benchers—for the fact that this Government are giving proper consideration to the process of withdrawal from the EU. I believe that this Government—
Mr Jones
No, nevertheless. Today’s announcements have demonstrated the commitment of this Government to investing in transport in the UK to help deliver growth and economic security for the whole of the UK. This will remain the case after we leave the EU. The UK remains open for business and industry continues to invest in the UK, as demonstrated by recent announcements such as Associated British Ports’ investment of £50 million in vehicle-handling facilities at the port of Southampton. We will do our best to ensure that transport remains central to our consideration of the issues that arise in the context of our departure from the EU. Once again, I thank hon. Members for their contributions today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and transport.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in relation to a matter, notice of which I have given to Mr Speaker and, indeed, to the Foreign Office. Yesterday, during Foreign Office questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), in answer to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), concerning the demolition in the Negev of Umm al-Hiran in Israel, said:
“I will be looking at this particular announcement and making a statement on this later today.”
—[Official Report, 22 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 749.]
At about half-past 6 yesterday evening, my office made an inquiry of the Minister’s office and was told that a statement would be issued as soon as possible. We were told the same thing this morning. We were then told that, in fact, it would be a media statement. At about 5 o’clock, when my office phoned again to give notice that I intended to raise this as a point of order, a very short press release was put on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.
The point on which I seek your guidance is this: is a Minister in compliance with his or her duties to the House by saying that he or she will make a statement and then issuing a press release, given what Mr Speaker has said in the past about the House being told first before the media?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He and the House know that it is not a point on which I can make a ruling from the Chair, because, of course, the way in which statements are made by Ministers is ultimately a matter for the Minister himself or herself, but I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He has effectively drawn the matter to the attention of the House and, I hope, rather more widely, because it is a sensitive and important matter. Mr Speaker has said many times in the past that, when a Minister has something to say, it ought to be said first to the House. I cannot make a judgment or a ruling about the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, but one would hope that if a Minister has given an undertaking to come to the House with certain information, he will do so at some point. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this sensitive issue to the attention of the House.
PETITION
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition to the House for no fewer than 866 of Her Majesty’s most loyal subjects who live in the Australian external territory of Norfolk Island. I know that you support Norfolk Island, Madam Deputy Speaker, having visited the territory some years ago. Today’s petition coincides with this year’s visit to Norfolk Island by me and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). We visited the island to see what is happening about the right of self-governance being removed from the people of that territory.
As hon. Members will know, we cherish the fact that territories and dependencies should have the right of self-determination. As we uphold that for our territories, so should Australia uphold it for the people of Norfolk Island. The petition also coincides with the visit to the United Kingdom of the former Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, the Hon. Andre Nobbs, and the President of the Council of Elders of Norfolk Island, Mr Albert Buffett.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that on behalf of residents of Norfolk Island, there is an identified historical, cultural, legal and constitutional relationship which Norfolk Island and the Norfolk Island people have celebrated since 1856 with the United Kingdom and the British people.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Government to support the people of Norfolk Island to be able to uphold their right of self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter specific to decolonisation and humbly request the same right of self-determination as afforded to the people of the British Overseas territories.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001982]
ADJOURNMENT
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Berry
Sian Nixon, the modern languages teacher, is one of the many inspirational teachers at Haslingden High School. She has invited me and a local manufacturer to go into the school and talk about the value of modern languages before pupils make their GCSE choices. Will the Government say what can be done to encourage more businesses to enter schools, in particular to promote apprenticeships in areas of high manufacturing worth such as Rossendale and Darwen?
Robert Halfon
I know that my hon. Friend is an incredible constituency champion on skills and careers. I hope that when he goes into that school he will talk about apprenticeships as well as modern languages. We have created the Careers and Enterprise Company, with £90 million of investment. It has 1,200 enterprise advisers to help more than 900 schools interact with businesses and have work experience and other career options.
[Official Report, 14 November 2016, Vol. 617, c. 13.]
Letter of correction from Robert Halfon:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Education.
The correct response should have been:
Robert Halfon
I know that my hon. Friend is an incredible constituency champion on skills and careers. I hope that when he goes into that school he will talk about apprenticeships as well as modern languages. We have created the Careers and Enterprise Company, and have provided £90 million of investment for careers provision. It has 1,200 enterprise advisers to help more than 900 schools interact with businesses and have work experience and other career options.
Apprenticeships
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
To promote apprenticeships in schools, strong careers guidance is critical. However, this month’s cross-party verdict from the two Select Committee Chairs who have looked at this, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), is that
“Ministers appear to be burying their heads in the sand while careers guidance fails young people”.
Will this Minister—the third Minister to whom I have put this question—back the Select Committee’s recommendation to restore proper work experience in schools at key stage 4? Will he lift his head out of the sand?
Robert Halfon
I suggest the hon. Gentleman stops being a doom-monger and becomes an apprentice-monger. We are providing the Careers and Enterprise Company with £90 million to boost career provision in schools, with £20 million for investment. The National Careers Service is getting £77 million to help people with careers. We have thousands of enterprise advisers in schools all over the country. This is what the Careers and Enterprise Company is all about. The Government are investing in careers, investing in skills and investing in apprenticeships.
[Official Report, 14 November 2016, Vol. 617, c. 14.]
Letter of correction from Robert Halfon:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Education.
The correct response should have been:
Robert Halfon
I suggest the hon. Gentleman stops being a doom-monger and becomes an apprentice-monger. We are providing £90 million to boost career provision in schools, with £20 million for investment. The National Careers Service is getting £77 million to help people with careers. We have thousands of enterprise advisers in schools all over the country. This is what the Careers and Enterprise Company is all about. The Government are investing in careers, investing in skills and investing in apprenticeships.
Home Department
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
The inquiry has set up 13 strands of investigation, and made 250 formal requests for information from over 120 institutions, with 164,000 documents having now been submitted. It has referred roughly 80 cases a week to the police. It has rolled out the truth project, providing survivors with the opportunity to tell the inquiry what has happened to them. More than 500 people have so far come forward.
[Official Report, 21 November 2016, Vol. 617, c. 605.]
Letter of correction from Sarah Newton.
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy).
The correct response should have been:
Sarah Newton
The inquiry has set up 13 strands of investigation, and made 250 formal requests for information from over 120 institutions, with 164,000 documents having now been submitted. It has referred roughly 80 cases a month to the police. It has rolled out the truth project, providing survivors with the opportunity to tell the inquiry what has happened to them. More than 500 people have so far come forward.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Sarah Newton
To go back to my response to the urgent question, the fact that 80 cases a week are being referred to the police and that over 500 people have come forward to participate in the truth project shows how valuable the inquiry already is to those victims.
[Official Report, 21 November 2016, Vol. 617, c. 608.]
Letter of correction from Sarah Newton.
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).
The correct response should have been:
Sarah Newton
To go back to my response to the urgent question, the fact that 80 cases a month are being referred to the police and that over 500 people have come forward to participate in the truth project shows how valuable the inquiry already is to those victims.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Sarah Newton
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question, and I pay tribute to her for the work she has done in campaigning so assiduously for justice for her constituents. I reassure her and everyone who is here that those lessons have been learned from the past. The inquiry is an incredibly important part of what the Government are doing to learn lessons from the past and make sure that we are doing everything that we can to keep children in our country safe. As a result of people coming forward to the inquiry, as I said in my response to the urgent question, more than 80 referrals a week are being made to the police.
[Official Report, 21 November 2016, Vol. 617, c. 610.]
Letter of correction from Sarah Newton.
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd).
The correct response should have been:
Sarah Newton
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question, and I pay tribute to her for the work she has done in campaigning so assiduously for justice for her constituents. I reassure her and everyone who is here that those lessons have been learned from the past. The inquiry is an incredibly important part of what the Government are doing to learn lessons from the past and make sure that we are doing everything that we can to keep children in our country safe. As a result of people coming forward to the inquiry, as I said in my response to the urgent question, more than 80 referrals a month are being made to the police.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Sarah Newton
If the right hon. Gentleman or his constituents have any evidence whatever, they should go to the inquiry right now. We are not waiting for the end of the inquiry to take action, as I have said before; more than 80 cases are sent to the police every week so that action can be taken. It is really important that people engage with the inquiry and support their constituents in doing so, so that we can seek justice for the victims.
[Official Report, 21 November 2016, Vol. 617, c. 610.]
Letter of correction from Sarah Newton.
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).
The correct response should have been:
Sarah Newton
If the right hon. Gentleman or his constituents have any evidence whatever, they should go to the inquiry right now. We are not waiting for the end of the inquiry to take action, as I have said before; more than 80 cases are sent to the police every month so that action can be taken. It is really important that people engage with the inquiry and support their constituents in doing so, so that we can seek justice for the victims.
Homelessness Reduction Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 23rd November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 View all Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 November 2016 - (23 Nov 2016)
The Chair
Good morning. Before we consider the Bill in detail, I remind hon. Members that there will be the severest of sanctions against those who use mobile devices and, likewise, against those who try to drink tea or coffee during the sitting.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That, if proceedings on the Homelessness Reduction Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee meets on Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 9.30 am.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second week in a row, Mr Chope; I suspect that it will not be the last time. The motion will ensure that we have time for a full and constructive debate on the details of the Bill. I hope that everyone agrees that getting the Bill right in Committee is important, so that we can return it to the House in as complete a fashion as possible and it can complete its passage, particularly given that it has all-party support. I hope that the motion will have the full support of the Committee and that we can progress with a like mind.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your fair and clear chairmanship, Mr Chope. We always know where we stand when you are in the Chair, for good or ill. I have no reason to oppose the motion; the Opposition welcome the opportunity for open-ended debate on this important Bill.
My only observation is that the order of consideration is somewhat unorthodox. We are to start with clause 2, so the substantive clause 1 will come later, and probably not in the first sitting. I make no formal objection to that, but—I hope that the Government and the Bill’s promoter hear this—if there are to be substantive amendments, it would be as well for those of us who may also table amendments if they could be made available sooner rather than later; otherwise we are going to get ourselves into a bit of mess, which will not help proceedings to be as clear and efficient as possible.
Not having seen any Government amendments yet, I make no criticism of them; I will wait until I see them. It would be helpful if the Minister or the promoter could indicate when they are likely to be tabled, because we will clearly either be wasting our time or getting our wires crossed if we try to amend something that is no longer going to be in the Bill.
The Chair
There are two separate motions. It will be more convenient to decide upon the first motion first, although the hon. Gentleman has just referred to some of the contents of the second motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Bob Blackman
I beg to move,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clause 2, Clause 3, Clause 8, Clause 9, Clauses 4 to 7, Clauses 10 to 13, Clause 1, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.
Over the past few weeks, I and others have met stakeholders, in particular the Minister and his officials, to consider the Bill as presented on Second Reading. We will discuss potential amendments to some of the clauses, to make sure that their meaning is clarified, any errors are corrected and their effect is improved. One of the problems associated with this type of Bill is the consequences of changing the system. We do not want it to impact on that. My proposed order of consideration will allow sufficient time to complete the process. We are clear that we want to proceed on an all-party basis, working closely together in a collegiate fashion, so that amendments, especially Government amendments, are tabled in plenty of time and everyone has a chance to read and understand them, and, if Members want to propose further changes, we can do so.
One rationale for the order of consideration is that there has been substantial lobbying on clause 1 in particular. I propose that we debate that clause at the end, because that will allow us to ensure that any proposed amendments to it are drawn up in a suitable fashion, through parliamentary counsel, and circulated to Members. By the time we come to debate the clause, everyone on the Committee will have had a chance to see and understand the provisions and obtain any background information that they need.
That is the reason for a slightly strange order of consideration. One reason that clauses 4 to 7 are included later is that it was envisaged—although this may turn out not to be the case—that there might be consequential amendments to clause 4 in particular, as a result of amending clause 1. I understand from our discussions last night that that may not necessarily be the case.
The order of consideration gives us a sensible route for discussing the clauses. My understanding is that some of the earlier clauses are less likely to be controversial or require amendments, but we want to go through them in detail as well. I hope that, in that spirit, we can discuss the Bill in the order suggested. If colleagues are concerned and want to change it, I will understand, but I believe that it is a logical way of dealing with the Bill, because it is complicated and any changes will have consequences.
Andy Slaughter
I have nothing to add other than this: I understand that there is no formal programme motion for a private Member’s Bill, but given the tactics that the hon. Gentleman has set out, I wonder when he envisages the first sitting taking place. It looks like there will be an interesting debate on clause 1 or what replaces it, but when will we get to that point? This is a bit like “Hamlet” without the prince: we are talking around the subject before we actually get to it. When will the new position on clause 1 be set out and when are we likely to debate it? Clearly, that is a matter for the Committee, but it would be useful to know what is in the minds of the Government and the promoter.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I want to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend has made. It would be useful to have some idea of timing so that we can plan ahead and prepare. I also welcome what the hon. Member for Harrow East, who is in charge of the Bill, has said about the intention to proceed on an all-party basis and to try to secure agreement, because that is how we have worked on the issue. Even before the Bill was a gleam in the hon. Gentleman’s eye, the Communities and Local Government Committee discussed the issue and its members worked together on trying to improve the service that homeless people receive.
I welcome the fact that we will take another look at clause 1. On Second Reading, I raised concerns about the loopholes that it might provide for those authorities that are perhaps less enthusiastic than us about trying to improve the service. Some of the caveats may give them wiggle room not to deliver the sort of service intended. It is important that we get the clause right, that we make it watertight and that we do not allow wiggle room for authorities that do not want to comply, so it is very important that we have time to consider it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. As he has said, since Second Reading we have been working closely with him and a number of other stakeholders to get to this point.
I hear what has been said about clause 1. As I said on Second Reading, we were aware that several stakeholder groups had concerns about clause 1. At that point, we said that we would listen carefully to those concerns. We have continued to do that and to engage in dialogue.
As my hon. Friend has said, we cannot yet say for definite when the amendment to the clause will be tabled, but I assure Opposition Front Benchers that, in the spirit of how the Bill has been handled so far—a spirit of co-operation across the House to enact important legislation that will benefit homeless people and people at risk of becoming homeless across the country—we fully intend to ensure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith has sight of the proposal for clause 1 as soon as is practicable. We are willing to work with him.
Bob Blackman
I trust that that reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister and me is sufficient to ensure that colleagues are content. The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked when we are likely to get to clause 1. Provided that my proposed order of consideration is agreed to, I propose that we adjourn now, and that we meet next Wednesday to start the process.
I envisage that we will not debate clause 1 until, possibly, 14 December, depending on the progress we make, but I am clear that when the amendment to the clause is ready, we will circulate it to all members of the Committee. If there are any other amendments, we will circulate them as soon as they are available. I hope that colleagues on the other side of the argument will also take that in the spirit in which it is intended. The earlier we can have sight of proposed amendments, the better, so that we can carefully consider their impact not only on the clause, but, consequentially, on the Bill. I trust that we have satisfied everyone and that we can proceed accordingly.
The Chair
May I remind Members that amendments for next week would need to be tabled before close of play on Friday? As nobody knows exactly what progress there will be, the sooner amendments are tabled, the better.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Bob Blackman.)
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Exiting the EU: Higher Education
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of exiting the EU on higher education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. My delight at securing this debate is slightly tempered with disappointment, because I originally submitted it to the Brexit Department but it was passed over to the Department for Education. Much as I like and respect the Universities Minister, especially since he campaigned on the same side as most of my hon. Friends and me in the EU referendum, I wish that the people responsible for this mess were answering these questions. But never mind; we are where we are.
For a matter of such crucial importance, the future of universities barely featured in the debates before 23 June; it was completely absent from the notorious leaflet, it was not on the side of any bus and it was not in any of the TV debates. However, it seems that some catching up is under way. The other day I opened my alumni magazine from its polythene wrap to find a long essay about it from the vice-chancellor of Cambridge University —or should I say a long lament? A Prime Minister’s question and a parliamentary question were asked on the subject last week, and I recently turned on the TV and found that the House of Lords was debating it. In her answer to the PMQ, the Prime Minister affirmed the need to continue to attract the brightest and best, but I am afraid that many in the sector fear that the opposite could happen because of the decision to leave. The damage must be limited now.
Brexit in general raises all sorts of questions of uncertainty and unpredictability, from macro stuff, such as the freedom of movement and the single market, to micro issues that people can get their heads around, such as the size of a Toblerone or the price of Marmite. Universities too have macro and micro issues, all refracted through the academic prism; this debate is almost a microcosm of all such debates. I will raise some of those issues before seeking some assurances and listing some asks of the Minister.
In the Times Higher Education’s ranking of 800 universities according to a range of indicators, UK institutions were three of the top 10. We should all be proud of that, but it is now imperilled. I see a parallel with how the leave campaigners kept saying, “We are the fifth largest economy; we’ll be okay”, but now, soon afterwards, it looks as if we are slipping down to sixth place. Most of the rest of those 10 universities are in the United States, so we should be under no illusions: our placing is a result of the all-important English language, but it is also buttressed by our access to European networks and by our intellectual climate. We need to do all we can to indemnify our universities now.
On macro issues, it is arguably the role of a university to be about global reach and collaboration. Many speakers in the Lords debate spoke about soft power. Other people like the phrase “bridges, not walls”—although the chief advocate for building literal walls has found that the reputation of his own university, Trump University, has not fared that well recently, given the court case that was settled on Friday. Leaving that aside, concrete examples of research projects that have benefited from EU funds include the hadron collider space research that captivated the world.
EU students on campuses have also benefited. I taught in universities for many years before I came to this place in May 2015, and I know that many of our courses are populated by EU students—particularly STEM subjects and business studies, which are less popular with home students. When I talk to my friends in the sector, they say that a lot of masters courses would completely collapse without those students. We need some assurances on the fee code that will apply to them; we know that there are assurances up to 2018-19, but what will happen after that?
We also know that the Treasury will underwrite research funds obtained while we are in the EU, but such research streams often go hand in hand with EU structural funds—I think Portsmouth has had a medical campus out of it. Structural funds related to EU funding fluctuate yearly but can be between £50 million and £100 million.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she agree that universities and their research and spin-offs have a crucial role post-Brexit, but that to make the most of it they need to be assured that lost EU funding will be totally reinstated, that collaborative research with researchers and institutions in the EU will be enabled to continue and that restrictions on overseas students’ post-study opportunities must be relaxed?
Dr Huq
As always, my right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He has anticipated my speech very well, because EU students and their migration totals are on my list of asks, which I am coming to.
The Prime Minister’s much quoted Downing Street speech advocated
“an economy that works for everyone”.
Universities are often the biggest employers in their cities. There are lots of figures on this; in 2014-15, 125,000 EU students generated some £4 billion for the UK economy, and there is off-campus spending as well. We must not ignore all that. We need to bust the myth that universities are merely insular communities up an ivory tower with their heads in a book and provide no wider public benefit. In addition, there is the £836 million of research funds—15% of the total. Universities provide good economic value.
Universities are also changing. My constituency is home to the University of West London, but also to a distance learning and blended learning institution, Arden University. People felt that there were already pressures on the sector, but Brexit is exacerbating everything.
As well as statistics, we should also consider a wider set of philosophies. In my alumni magazine, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge wrote that
“the University has a duty of leadership that it will not forsake…Our commitment to Europe…is…to a shared cultural and intellectual heritage”.
In the ’90s, as a twentysomething, I did a stint at Strasbourg II, one of Strasbourg’s many universities. I want others to have the same opportunities. After I finished my degrees, I worked as a university staffer; the Russell Group, where I was employed early in my career, has had to lay on hotlines to provide not only emotional counselling but legal help for its institutions to get indefinite leave to remain for academics who are completely traumatised by what has happened.
I know from friends in the research community that British researchers are already being snubbed for Horizon 2020 funding or are being told, “You can’t be the lead partner institution any more because you will be gone soon”, and we have not even left the EU yet.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes some valid arguments. I was on the other side of the Brexit campaign from her, but I know how important universities are. European research funding makes up 11% of the research budget for York University in my constituency. She has hit a key note. We really need to know whether Britain will be part of a wider collaboration with the EU and involved in the future beyond Horizon 2020, whatever it may be. We do not know what that future will be, but we need to make certain that UK universities play a leading role in it.
Dr Huq
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are many unknown unknowns in this debate. A former employer of mine, Professor Martin McQuillan from Kingston University, where I was last employed, has written an article about the post-1992 sector. York is a Russell Group university, as is Cambridge, and Manchester, where I used to work, but at the other end of the spectrum we have the new universities that John Major equalised—the ex-polys, which felt precariously perched anyway. In his article, he outlines some of the pressures—we discussed some of them on Report on the Higher Education and Research Bill on Monday—including rocketing class sizes without commensurate resource, reforms to the research excellent framework, and the new teaching excellence framework.
My old boss says that to some extent EU funding used to level the playing field, but if that is gone, it will tip things even more unequally towards the older universities. He highlights the shocking Higher Education Funding Council for England prediction that between 2015 and 2019, the funding gap between the best and worst-performing institutions will widen, with the spread running from plus 21.5%—some will be in surplus by that much—to the worst performing at minus 28.6%. That is quite a disparity, and it is set to grow; hardly an economy that works for all.
I would rather we had remained in the EU to shape the criteria. One of the arguments was that we might be like Norway, having to do all the same stuff but not making the decisions at the top table. But we are where we are. I shall now go through the list of asks, or—I do not know—demands; or should I be collegiate and friendly and call them the suggestions that we might like to build into a future strategy?
Dr Huq
Yes. Many academics, and not just them but the ancillary staff and all those other people, such as the technicians, are part of the 48%. If we are going to jump off a cliff, it is a good idea to have some idea of where we are going to land, preferably with a parachute to soften the descent.
Here come the assurances I am seeking. First, I urge the Government to heed the warning of MillionPlus, which is the pressure group for the post-1992 sector, equivalent to the Russell Group. It says that any moves to create a more “hostile environment” for EU or international students in order to drive down immigration is “problematic”, so we should remove students from the immigration targets. All the polling shows that people see them not as immigrants but as temporary stayers, and they are welcome here and valued by the population at large.
Secondly, we all do surgeries and we all deal with the Home Office. Home Office procedures and the vexatious visa requirements should be speeded up. The tier 2 visa threshold is now at £35,000; it was £18,000. I have spoken about it previously in relation to curry chefs, but the principle also applies to people such as lab technicians, who are highly skilled but who in universities might not be earning £35,000, which is quite high on the spinal scale. The threshold should therefore be looked at again.
Thirdly, I mentioned my experience with the Erasmus programme; access to Erasmus+ should be guaranteed for UK students. Even if it requires funding, the money should be found from somewhere, because we want to be a forward-thinking trading nation that keeps engaging with the world. Fourthly, we have had short-term assurances on Horizon 2020 and fees until 2018, but longer-term stability is needed for forward planning as we voyage into uncharted waters. The business model cannot continue as “business as usual”.
Fifthly, we are substantial net beneficiaries of our universities’ European dealings, so we somehow need to retain as much as possible in a new way, which is why I would like to see higher education represented at the top table in Brexit negotiations. I hope that the Minister will be there, given all his expertise and all the multifaceted aspects. Will we be like Norway, with access but no influence? Will we be a sort of pay-as-you-go country? Or will there be some third way that I have not thought of?
Sixthly, since this debate was announced I have received loads of suggestions from institutions all over the country —far wider than Ealing Central and Acton. My old union, the University and College Union, has produced a charter that urges the Government to enshrine human rights, and has also said that there should be an urgent inquiry. If that inquiry, or any other, goes ahead, it should consider campus hate crime. Anecdotally, we have heard of a worrying upsurge now that people feel disinhibited in voicing what was previously not politically correct, or was politically incorrect. We had already heard about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism rearing their ugly heads on campuses. The climate at a university should be that of a safe space for all, so all intolerance should be stamped on.
Seventhly, of all the different quotes I have seen in preparing for this debate, my favourite is this one, which I think the Minister may recognise:
“European research funding offers a good example of how the EU can get things right…EU countries are among our most crucial partners…Free movement of people makes it easier for our universities to attract the best talent.”
Those words were of course said by the Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson). They are as true now as when he said them. I know that we have lost that argument, but we still need to do everything we can to ensure that the Prime Minister dispels all doubts that EU nationals in the UK, and their dependents, will ever be bargaining chips in some kind of negotiating game. The Minister must also set out robust reciprocal arrangements for our academics who go elsewhere.
I could go on. I have spent a lifetime in universities: from 1990, when I started my undergraduate degree, to May 2015. That is quite a long time, and I have never really got out—I am always in the Library upstairs. In my experience, Westminster Hall debates sometimes have meaningless responses from Ministers, but I am optimistic that this Minister, whom I like, trust and respect, will come up with something better for us today, and I am keen to hear the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members from both the Government and Opposition Benches.
We have had our fair share of bad news this year. I could go on and on listing so many international atrocities, the result the other week and the referendum result. Before all that there was our friend and colleague, Jo Cox, whom we lost in June; that is still very difficult for many of us to process. We have had so much bad news that I am hoping for some good news from the Minister when he responds.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this debate. She should be more forthright in her demands of the Government; I give her some encouragement in that direction.
The terms of Brexit are clearly still to be decided. My priority, and that of my party, is to campaign for the least bad option for the Welsh economy. That includes getting the best possible outcome for higher education and putting in place every possible safety net to mitigate the potentially catastrophic effects of leaving the European Union in a hard-line way.
Mr Andrew Smith
Has the hon. Gentleman had cause to reflect on why Wales voted so strongly to leave the European Union?
Hywel Williams
The right hon. Gentleman asks a very interesting question, but given the shortness of time I shall not go too far in discussing it. The research that I and other respected academics in Wales have conducted shows that deprivation was an important factor. The constituency that received the most money from Europe—that of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who is not here today—voted most heavily to leave. It is something to do with deprivation and being left behind, but it is also, of course, much more complicated than that. I should say that my constituency voted 60:40 in favour of staying in.
Plaid Cymru has been united in its determination to maintain membership of the single market and the customs union, at least, because that would be by far the least damaging option for the Welsh economy—first, because of the wide-reaching benefits of being in the single market and customs union for Wales; and secondly, because it will enable Wales to qualify for the cross-border and transnational programmes and research and innovation funding from which our higher education sector derives such benefit.
Higher education is a major economic actor in Wales. It generates around £2.4 billion of Welsh gross value added and sustains almost 50,000 jobs. As for structural funding, I once worked at Bangor University, which alone has benefited from around £100 million of EU funding over the past 10 years. That investment supports jobs as well as capital projects. Swansea University’s campus on the bay was backed by £40 million of structural funds, plus a finance package worth £60 million from the European Investment Bank. These are huge sums of money. If we are to continue our success, the UK Government need to match the commitment of the EU to the principle of regional equalisation. That is why we call for a UK convergence strategy to replace EU funding, and on a needs basis.
I opposed, and still oppose, leaving the EU for many reasons: philosophical; historical; educational; the EU’s promotion of peace on our continent; and most importantly for me, at least, the EU’s cultural and linguistic diversity, and the normality of multilingualism, which is sadly not matched in this member state and certainly not in its Parliament.
Higher education has been a central feature of Welsh policy for many centuries. When we were last independent—a little matter of some six hundred years ago—there were three main planks of Government policy in Wales, one of which was the establishment of a university to join Padua and Oxford, which were already up and running. That ambition was not realised until the 19th century; it took us four or five hundred years to get our act together. Nevertheless, it is indicative of the importance that we place on higher education in Wales, and of the need to defend what we already have, that there are now seven higher education institutions in Wales.
I do not ignore the material benefit that we also derive from membership of the EU. It is no source of pride to me that we get convergence funding because our economy is on a par with some parts of the former communist states in eastern Europe. We get that money because we are a poor country with some extremely poor regions, one of which I represent. At least the EU has a policy of convergence funding for which Wales qualifies—alas—and our institutions derive great benefits from that funding.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the UK is a net contributor to the EU, so that anything that comes back in regional funds is a loss. However, when we break the UK down into its regions and countries, only Northern Ireland and Cornwall are net beneficiaries. Will he accept that Wales loses out by the European funds in net terms, rather than gaining from them?
Hywel Williams
I would be much more prepared to accept that argument if the Government here in London had a similar regional policy, so that when we leave the EU one could be guaranteed that the money that comes from Europe will come from London instead. When David Cameron was Prime Minister, I repeatedly asked him to guarantee that this funding would continue post-Brexit, but he refused to give such a guarantee. I doubt that it is in the power of the Minister today to make up for that failure, but I look to him for at least some reassuring indication that this issue is actually on the agenda.
I will refer very quickly to cross-border programmes. In the first year of the Horizon 2020 scheme from 2015 to 2016, Welsh university staff have already succeeded in securing £25 million of funding. Those programmes help Welsh students and institutions to compete on the world stage, which surely must be our ambition. Identified research funding to Wales suggests that Welsh institutions received some €183 million between 2002 and 2013, and it is estimated that Wales received at least €29 million from lifelong learning funds, including Erasmus, from 2007 to 2013. Those funds are vital to encourage joint working and collaboration between academics and students in different EU member states and further afield.
I will briefly refer to my own university of Bangor. There are 2,000 international students in Bangor; the total student population doubles the city’s population, so the university is vital to the local economy. Can the Minister assure me that the UK Government are giving due consideration to the disproportionate effects of post-Brexit immigration controls on small university towns or cities, of which Bangor is one? That is a particular issue. Bangor University also has widespread international links, which I referred to in the debate on higher education the other day, including a site in China, so we are worried and concerned. Moreover, Trinity College Dublin has a site in Bangor for Japanese students to learn English. It is an excellent institution, but I think the staff there are also worried.
To cut a much longer speech short, the HE sector in Wales is one of the keys to unlock the doorway to our prosperity—
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
May I say that speakers have about nine minutes each, so you are okay?
Hywel Williams
I will conclude, as I have reached the last page of my speech. As I was saying, the HE sector in Wales is one of the keys to unlock the doorway to prosperity. Both the UK Government and the Welsh Government have a duty to protect and advance the HE sector in Wales, and we will scrutinise the way in which they do so very closely indeed.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for securing this important debate. I know this subject is very close to her heart, given her work as a university lecturer before her election to serve her constituents here in the House. This subject is also very close to my heart. As an NHS scientist before I came to this place, I worked in a field that thrived on collaboration and recognised no boundaries.
Our universities are rightly held in high esteem worldwide. We have 18 of the top 100 universities in the world, including four in the top eight. Globally, Britain represents only 0.9% of the world’s population, but we have 3.2% of global research and development expenditure and 4.1% of the world’s leading researchers, producing more than 15% of pioneering research papers.
It is well known that British science punches above its weight in the international university league tables and does so mainly thanks to EU grants. British science is not awash with funding; in fact, Britain has the lowest per capita spending on research of any G7 country. Sadly, Brexit and the Government’s handling of the referendum outcome have shown their inability to lead and to quash uncertainty over what Brexit will actually mean for the higher education sector. Brexit just adds more uncertainty, and uncertainty breeds insecurity.
There are two aspects of the human and intellectual cost of Brexit for universities. The first is the brain drain and the second is the potential restrictions on overseas research students. The brain drain is nothing new. Many senior figures in British universities remember the lack of support from the Thatcher Government in the 1980s and the exodus of scientists abroad. It is ironic that the four recent British Nobel prize-winners—Duncan Haldane, David Thouless, Michael Kosterlitz and Sir Fraser Stoddart—are all based in the US, having been forced out of Britain during the 1980s brain drain. British research scientists are worried that the Prime Minister’s mantra that “Brexit means Brexit” will lead to a lack of funding and grants for British science, and has the potential to create a modern-day brain drain.
Dr Huq
I neglected to say something in my own speech. As a scientist, is my hon. Friend aware of the Science and Technology Committee’s report last week that says that the future of EU researchers and scientists in this country should be guaranteed, because otherwise we would imperil our science research base here?
Liz McInnes
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and yes I am. I was briefly a member of the Science and Technology Committee and I try to keep on top of the work that it produces. I fully support its call for EU funding to be replaced in some way by this Government, and I hope that we might get a response from the Minister today on that subject.
Graham Stringer
Is my hon. Friend aware of the previous Science and Technology Committee report that pointed out that the EU is inimical to UK science? The clinical trials directive has destroyed much research in this country; the EU’s ban on genetically modified food has destroyed much of the chemical-agricultural industry in this country; and the arbitrary sacking of the Commission’s scientific adviser was destructive to science. We have example after example of how the EU has damaged British science.
Liz McInnes
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not aware of that report. I do not know when it was published. It certainly does not echo the views that I am expressing in my speech or the views of eminent vice-chancellors and scientists who work in the UK today. Perhaps if he can send me a copy of the report, I will look at it at a later date.
As well as the potential for a modern-day brain drain, we have the very real potential of UK universities becoming less attractive to international research students. Indeed, the vice-chancellors of LSE, King’s College London and Bristol have already voiced their fears for the recruitment of international students and how that will have serious financial and human resource consequences for our universities. The vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, is a stalwart remainer, but he recognises the result of the referendum and he wants Cambridge to get the best out of Brexit. He says that to achieve that, the Government must provide some basic clarity on what Brexit actually means. He asks for three things from the Government: clarity on the national status of university staff; a recognition of the collaborative ideal implicit in EU projects; and a Government guarantee of vital university budgets. I hope that his requests will be listened to and heeded by the Government.
Some people might regard the vice-chancellor of Cambridge as something of an expert, and although the people of this country were urged not to listen to experts during the referendum, it is vital that, on this subject and the many other areas affected by the Brexit negotiations, the Government take note of our finest minds and our experts. They are not asking for a running commentary, but for clarity and a coherent, informed plan as to the exact nature and manner of our departure from the EU.
The EU makes substantial financial contributions to research in UK universities. Research funding from the EU amounts to some £1 billion a year, while Britain’s national research budget, as I alluded to while discussing British science, is below international averages. The EU’s contribution to the income of UK universities has risen by more than 30% in the past five years. I represent a Greater Manchester constituency, and universities across our region have more than 4,000 EU students currently on their campuses. That equates to spending of £90 million a year—that is not just tuition fees, but expenditure in the local economy. Manchester University has received £48 million in research funding in the past two years alone. The loss of such substantial funding and a failure to attract EU students could not fail to have a detrimental effect on our area.
I have spoken about the economic positives and security of funding, but the academic, scientific and higher education sectors are not merely about money. Education at its core is about collaboration, common understanding and continual progress. Education has no boundaries and no borders, and science knows no country. We must decide where Britain’s place post-Brexit is going to be. I hope that it will be not in isolationism and introversion, but that the Government will set out a clear plan for diversity, collaboration and funding and for our universities to maintain their place and their standing in the world.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I have got five Members on the list to speak by half-past 10, so I ask them to keep their remarks down to just below five minutes. I invite Jim Shannon to give us an example of that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank you, Mr Davies, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on setting out the case very well. It is no secret that I was very much in the leave camp. [Interruption.] I am surrounded by many people who have a different opinion, but I still look upon them as my friends and colleagues, and that will not change, no matter what happens. I am proud to speak on this matter, because it is of some interest to many of my constituents, and I want to bring a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. These are important issues, as the Minister and shadow Minister know.
I attended a grammar school, where I did my O-levels, but at that time it was clear that I would not continue to university. My father had a shop and that is where my intentions were and where they ended up, at the beginning at least. I did not enjoy academia as much as I enjoyed the jingle of cash in my pocket. When there was a chance of getting a job and moving on, that is what I thought I should do. I have a high regard for all those who prioritised education and for those who knew they were called to those vocational jobs that are so essential to all. Society could not function without a broad spectrum of people with skills to fill the jobs that need to be done.
The hon. Lady indicated that we have dropped to sixth in the world. I would be happy if the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was in sixth place, because we would still be strong. Unemployment figures are decreasing. We have a good and strong economy. I have every confidence in Brexit and where we are going.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while there is difficulty with unsureness about funding, there is a danger of talking ourselves into depression and sending out a negative message to students who want to come to the United Kingdom to learn? We will work together to resolve the issues, and I think that is the way forward.
Jim Shannon
Quite clearly my hon. Friend, like me, sees the glass as half full. We believe in the future and we have confidence in the future, and we look forward to that. We know we can deliver.
I am beyond proud of the universities in Northern Ireland: Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University. We have tremendous courses that produce highly recognised degrees. I have met many politics students from Europe and the USA who made the choice to study in Northern Ireland because universities in the UK are so highly regarded. We have a legacy of high-class institutions in this country, and we must build upon and jealously guard that legacy. Queen’s University Belfast is made up of 32% international students. It is essential that our campuses retain the ability to access the international market. There are partnerships at Queen’s University and the University of Ulster with companies and students from overseas for new research into medicines.
There is no need for a knee-jerk reaction. The Government have made it clear that EU students applying to study from 2017 to 2018 will not only be eligible for the same funding and support as they are now, but their eligibility will continue throughout their course, even if the UK exits the European Union during that period. That is the Government’s commitment, so let us be clear where we are. We have time to consider the best way forward. We can all still be assured of that. The Minister in his response will reaffirm that position, and it is important that he does so.
We are all aware of the issues regarding visas for those who are not from the EU and who want to study here, and we must be aware of the statistics. Non-EU students contributed £3.5 billion in 2012-13, £3.9 billion in 2013-14 and £4.2 billion in 2014-15. It is clear from those stats that we are still able to attract international students without the benefits of EU membership, but I am certainly not saying that no thought should be given in the Brexit negotiations to reciprocal incentives that our former EU partners could avail themselves of in the short term. Let us ensure that we keep the co-operation with our EU partners that we have at the moment. The value and the importance of our EU and international students and their role in our economy should not be underestimated. Indeed, I believe that the Government are not underestimating them.
It is absolutely clear that we benefit from having universities that people from around the globe want to attend. In 2013-14, there were some 125,300 EU students at UK universities, and in that year £224 million was paid in fee loans to EU students on full-time courses in England. That was 3.7% of the total student loan bill. The higher education sector contributes a massive £73 billion to the UK economy, including £11 billion of export earnings. The latest available figures show that in 2011, EU and non-EU students in higher education contributed an estimated £9.7 billion to the UK economy through tuition fees and living expenditure. The publicly funded higher education sector currently receives 2% of its total income from the fees of EU students, with some individual institutions receiving higher levels of funding.
I will conclude, Mr Davies, because I am aware of the time restraints. International students want to study here; the universities want them to study here; and our Government are aware that in Brexit we must facilitate and foster this educational relationship in every way possible. The value of sharing educational findings and research grants is another issue that I know the Government are very aware of, and I know they have confidence in our ability to continue funding projects such as those that take place in Queen’s University in Belfast and at Ulster University, which have resulted in ground-breaking innovation. This must continue; I believe it will.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I call Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods. You have five minutes.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I, too, want to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for calling this extremely important debate. I think we would all agree that higher education and research must be at the forefront of the Government’s mind as they start to make preparations for leaving the EU. The HE sector has become so internationalised and collaborative that the UK’s leaving the European Union will hugely impact on how the sector will operate in future.
Let me say to Government Members that this debate is not about trying to talk down the higher education sector; it is about trying to highlight for the Minister the action that needs to be taken to protect this hugely important sector as we move forward.
As chair of the all-party group on universities, I met university vice-chancellors last month who shared with me their key concerns about higher education in the Brexit process. Their concerns centre around four core issues: student recruitment, staff recruitment and retention, research, and upholding the global profile of our universities, which will be especially important once we leave the EU. They want to see the importance of the sector recognised more by the Government in their negotiations. As I pointed out to the Minister earlier this week, the sector contributes a massive £73 billion to the UK economy and needs to be at the front of the Government’s negotiations.
As we have already heard, some of the world’s leading universities are found in Britain, and I am pleased that the UK is now the second most popular destination for international students. However, that position could fall if action is not taken by the Government, particularly given the period of uncertainty following the referendum result. We have already seen a decline in the number of EU students applying to study in British universities—for example, in medicine and dentistry at some of our leading institutions. Figures last month showed a 9% drop in the numbers of EU students applying for those sought after courses, so we need to do more not only to protect the 185,000 EU students currently studying in the UK, but to continue to attract them to this country. They amount to quite a large proportion of students in universities, varying from about 5% to about 25%. Overall, about 30% of our students are international.
The Government need to ensure that they do not send out the message that international and EU students are not welcome here. They need to radically and quickly reform the immigration visa system to ensure that the message is that international and EU students are welcome here. The same needs to happen for staff. About 28% of staff working in universities are from the EU. About 40% of new academic posts created since 2004 have gone to EU nationals. They are a really important resource in our universities. They drive forward research and are involved in international collaborations. Again, we need to hear more about that from the Minister—not only how the research they are involved in will be protected but what will happen to their immigration status. That is urgent and needs to be resolved immediately by the Government.
The Government also need to say more about research funding itself. This is not just about Horizon 2020—that is important and we need to hear from the Government that they will continue to support it. We know that about 22% of the research in this country is funded through European projects and European-led collaborations. Universities need certainty that they will be able to continue to be involved in collaborations and to drive forward research in this country.
I have two quick questions for the Minister. I do not doubt his commitment to the sector, but we have not seen it reflected across Government. I am not sure where universities are on the international trade agenda, and he needs to answer the question of why education is not represented on the Exiting the European Union Committee or sub-Committee.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. I had already cut my speech, albeit not in anticipation of the time limits, but to try and get through it—my throat may stop me, but hopefully I will get to the end. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing today’s important debate. She is obviously well versed on the contribution that our universities make from her time lecturing at the University of Manchester and Kingston University. I very much enjoyed her contribution and the perspective that she brought to the debate today.
Shelby Foote once said:
“A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library.”
I suspect he was being a tad facetious, as the truth of the matter is that universities are so much more than books, the imparting of knowledge or certificates. Our universities are a cornerstone of the British economy. They provide stability in times of economic downturn, they give direction to young people searching for opportunities and they provide a second chance to mature students looking to better their lives for themselves and their children. I should probably declare an interest: my wife is one of those mature students looking to better our lives and the lives of our children.
Gavin Newlands
I should point out that she is not so mature—I appreciate that sedentary contribution from my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Students internationalise our communities and attempt to provide answers to some of life’s greatest unanswered questions, such as: how in the name of all that is holy can somebody like Donald Trump be elected President of the United States? It is in the acknowledgement of the overwhelmingly positive contribution that universities make to our economy and wider society that we should consider the effect that Brexit may have on our universities.
According to Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea, the principal of Edinburgh University, the potential impact of Brexit on HE
“ranges from bad, to awful, to catastrophic”.
Despite what the Government may sometimes suggest, people like Professor O’Shea are not political figures looking for an axe to grind. They are experts in the field whose views should be listened to and respected.
To compound the Brexit issues, the plan to prevent universities from recruiting international students—this would be based on an obscure and superficial quality mark decided by the Home Office—would be deeply damaging. All of Scotland’s 19 HE institutions reject the introduction of any restriction on their ability to recruit international students on the basis of a supposed differentiation in quality. All of Scotland’s universities are already routinely assessed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and routinely audited by the Home Office. When all is said and done, the Government seem to be saying that the institutions that do not receive the higher mark will be deemed not good enough for international students, but good enough for ours. Is that really the message the Government feel comfortable in sending out?
The University of the West of Scotland is going through an exciting period of growth. They ask their students and staff to dream, believe and achieve. Their global reach enabling plan is an ambitious plan to
“deliver an academic portfolio that provides...students with globally relevant skills, is internationally attractive and contributes to global reach.”
UWS is vital to Paisley and Renfrewshire. Some 15,500 students study there and 25% come from SIMD 20 postcodes—those ranked statistically under the Scottish index of multiple deprivation as the most deprived 20% in Scotland. UWS employs more than 1,500 people and helps to support 4,500 more. The Biggar Economics report noted:
“UWS has [the] potential to significantly increase its economic and social impact in the future through the delivery of its Corporate Strategy, which will transform both the University and the communities that it serves.”
The principal of UWS, Professor Craig Mahoney, has explained that expanding the university’s international presence, increasing the international opportunities for domestic students and growing the number of international students on their campuses are key to achieving the vision set out in its strategy and realising the potential set out in the report.
The truth of the matter is that Brexit, combined with the anti-HE policies of the Government, seriously risks damaging the operations and future plans of all our universities. Universities across the UK generate more than £73 billion each year for the economy. Their position in our society, the direction they provide to students, the jobs they support, the research opportunities they deliver and their importance to our national economy means that the Government cannot afford to undermine the sector, which deserves answers to the many questions about the Government’s approach. We need clarity, before the Government permanently damages our HE sector. We are at grave risk of being perceived as an unwelcoming location that does not value the contribution of international students, colleagues and partnerships. I sincerely hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance to the HE sector today.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for securing this debate. If the tactic of flattering the Minister brings answers, we are all going to have to start being slightly nicer to Government Ministers. I wait with bated breath to see if the tactic works.
This is an incredibly important debate. Most of the issues being discussed will be repetitive, because we all represent university cities and are concerned about the impact of Brexit on what is happening in our universities. It is not just Opposition politicians who are concerned—vice-chancellors, principals, students, student bodies, academic staff and those involved in research are constantly knocking on our doors at advice sessions. They are watching debates such as this one, and want their questions answered, not just for their own personal needs, such as their academic careers or their passion for higher education and research, but for the wider higher education sector and the economy. We should bear that in mind. I hope the Minister will tell the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union how important it is that he has a seat at the table to champion the cause of higher education in this debate.
In the short time available, I want to concentrate on Edinburgh University. It is in the heart of my constituency and epitomises the issues being discussed around the country, such as in Oxford, Cambridge or Loughborough, or in the west of Scotland, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands).
Edinburgh University is unique. It is one of the world’s top universities and 25% of its academic staff are from the European Union. That is higher than the average of 21% for Russell Group universities or 15% for universities across the UK as a whole. Some 14% of all students at Edinburgh University are from the EU, almost 5,000 in the last academic year, which is double the average for Russell Group universities. The figure is only 5% for universities across the UK. Some 10% of Edinburgh University’s entire total research income of £226 million in 2015 came from EU sources, with the largest proportion going to research in the College of Science and Engineering, the driver of innovation for the future needs of our country and economy. Figures up to February 2016 ranked Edinburgh University as the most successful Scottish higher education institution for Horizon 2020 funding, ranking sixth across the EU, gaining nearly €60 million in funding to date.
I hope the Minister realises how concerned we all are about Brexit and its impact on not just EU nationals but research funding and, critically, collaboration. Some 30% of the entire output of research from Edinburgh University, one of the world’s key research institutions, is from EU collaboration, co-authoring with other EU nation states. Anecdotal evidence, and some factual evidence that we have heard from my hon. Friends this morning, tells us that universities in the UK are still involved in those collaborative projects, but they are being told not to take the lead, not necessarily because of their skills or what they can bring to those projects, but because of the uncertainty about the impact that leaving the European Union will have on the projects. The Government have to reflect on that point seriously. Having universities in this country that are at the cutting edge of technology, research and development but which are unable to take the lead in big co-authored projects across the European Union diminishes our ability to run other major projects in the future and diminishes our higher education and research sector. To put the 30% into context, the figure is only 18% for co-authoring with the United States; collaboration with the EU is almost double, and that is why it is incredibly important.
I will not rehearse the arguments that my colleagues have already made, but I will re-emphasise the points that we need addressed. We need to maintain UK university access to EU research programmes. We need to seek income, partnerships and influence and make sure that outputs are collaborative, with UK universities right at the top of those collaborations. We need to continue UK contribution and access to EU research infrastructure, such as CERN. We need to preserve research excellence across the university sector. We need EU nationals to be told that they can stay and continue to work here. We need to continue to make sure that free movement, both EU and non-EU, is prioritised for our university sector, so that it can attract the very best, very highly skilled researchers. We need early clarity over the rules that will apply to tuition fees at Scottish, UK and EU level, so that we can make sure that future funding for universities is secure. We need continued access to Erasmus schemes. That is what universities are telling us they want. The Government have to deliver.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this debate. The issues that she raises, and the questions that universities are raising, are of course legitimate matters of concern, but the language that she used—“we are all jumping off a cliff without a parachute”—is the kind of negative language we should try to avoid. In my dealings with vice-chancellors —I represent Essex University in this Parliament, I am a graduate of Cambridge University and I deal with other universities; I am shortly to be appointed a visiting fellow of another university—I do not find universities are using this alarmist language. They want to make a success of the opportunities they have in the world.
It is important to understand the tremendous strength that our universities now have as a result of the progression towards fees and loans. They have been liberated from the constraints that Governments used to put upon them, have grown dramatically and are financially stronger than they have ever been in my lifetime. It is an extraordinarily good position to be in when approaching the present situation.
A lot of the uncertainty arises from confusion, which I have to say extends to Government Departments. I chair the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee; I see a lot of the civil service struggling to catch up with the absence of preparation for the outcome of the referendum, which is one of the lessons that we must take from it. It is unforgiveable for a Government to call a referendum and remain completely unprepared for one of the possible eventualities. There are many officials rapidly trying to get their brains around some difficult and complicated questions, in a scenario that they perhaps are not emotionally attracted to anyway. It is taking some time and the Government are entitled to take that time. I do not remember the Opposition parties telling the Government that they should prepare for Brexit when the referendum was called; I think they should be given the time that they need.
A lot of the uncertainty arises from confusion about what category the problems and concerns should be put in. Some concerns arise simply because of the uncertainty, and the Minister has already addressed some of those concerns. He could address some more and give more definition and assurance about funding streams, the status of students and academic staff joining universities at the moment, and so on.
Most of the debate is about what the Government’s policy will be after we leave the European Union—post-Brexit questions on issues of post-Brexit policy, such as what our immigration policy or our policy towards foreign students will be. There are relatively few issues that have to be included in the article 50 negotiations. In my discussions with universities, I advise them to try to categorise the issues and not to overload the article 50 negotiation process by trying to get everything resolved in that agreement. The less we put into that agreement, the more likely we are to get what we require.
There are three basic overall concerns. The first is about the access that foreign students—particularly EU students—have to the UK. It is interesting to note that only 5% of students in the UK are EU students. Some 10% are non-EU foreign students, who pay full fees, whereas EU students do not. It is actually going to be an advantage to the universities sector if we can charge EU students full fees. At the moment, the British taxpayer helps to fund those students. What is more, we are obliged to offer them loans, and the default rate among EU students is higher than that among UK students. There is talk in the Treasury about universities having to pay the cost of that default. We can resolve that issue by leaving the European Union.
The second concern is about access to EU funds. Table 9.9 of the Pink Book has become famous in the debate about leaving the European Union, but nobody disputes that we are one of the largest net contributors to the European Union. No Government in their right mind would use the pretext of leaving the European Union to cut the funds that universities receive, just because they get some of their money from the European Union. Let us remember that the money universities get from the European Union for research grants comes from us taxpayers. We put money into the European Union and we get only half of it back. We should be able to afford to pay more into our universities to fund more research and support our universities more effectively as a result of leaving the European Union, because we will no longer be forced to pay to subsidise universities elsewhere in the European Union. I acknowledge the concern that universities need certainty now and year on year into the future, but my hon. Friend the Minister should be able to give them a long-term assurance that we will fund research programmes in our universities as generously, if not more generously, in the future.
Finally, the idea that we are no longer going to collaborate with other universities in the EU is about as potty an idea as could be imagined. First, there are non-EU countries that participate in EU schemes. CERN, for example, is an international project. Let us have confidence in our universities. We have the crown jewels of scientific research in the EU in our universities. If I am correct, we have four universities in the world rankings top 10. We have 10 of the top 50 universities in the world—more than any other country outside the US. Two are in London—the same number as are in the entirety of the rest of the EU. It would be perverse if the EU wanted to cut itself off from UK universities, so we should approach the negotiations and future collaboration with universities with confidence. We have what it takes to promote successful collaboration with countries across the whole of Europe, whether they are in the EU or not. Outside the EU, our universities have as great a future, if not a greater future, than they would if we remained in the EU.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Talking of cuts, the Front Benchers have nine minutes each.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this important debate.
I have been thinking about what the big asks are for higher education as we move towards Brexit. There are three things that are going to be affected by Brexit. The first is the collaborations that take place across Europe, which draw in not just funding but people and are extremely important for the quality of higher education in the UK. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) talked about the concerns in the Welsh higher education sector about the threat to its EU funding as we move towards Brexit.
The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) highlighted the position of EU students. Both talked about the need to collaborate with EU partners to ensure we continue to attract EU students, and they raised the economic benefits that those students bring.
Of course, the EU also draws in funding. A recent Scottish Parliament report suggested that Scottish universities and institutions have received more than €200 million in Horizon 2020 funding, which has helped to fund research in disease prevention, improve our ability to tackle cyber-security issues and increase our understanding of climate change and how we can build a greener economy. That funding has been key for all those projects, so we need assurances about what will replace it in the future.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said that leading universities such as Edinburgh may find it difficult to lead collaborations. We need to be aware of the damage that will be done if universities that are currently leading collaborations are not able to continue to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) raised the issue of the University of the West of Scotland. It is currently in a period of expansion, but that could now be under threat.
Horizon 2020 is not an abstract research fund. It affects all our lives and helps us address challenges. Without EU membership, we will have very little influence over how that research funding is allocated in the future. I hope the Minister will be able to explain to universities what will happen in the event that they are not able to apply for Horizon 2020. I know that he knows that that fund has helped to support research work in higher education. What assurance can he give to the researchers whose research grants are being pulled because of Brexit? What certainty can he give to academics at the start of their careers, who are expected to collaborate internationally?
Secondly, given the reputational damage caused by Brexit, the lack of post-study work visas and the Higher Education and Research Bill, higher education in the UK is being viewed now internationally. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) mentioned the lack of preparation before the vote to leave the European Union and the uncertainty that caused for our universities. It is also causing uncertainty across the world, and we need to be aware of the difficulty that is causing for institutions.
Thirdly, there is the effect of Brexit on people. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton talked about the need to stamp out intolerance on our university campuses. I would widen that. We are in a dangerous worldwide situation at the moment, and we all need to be aware of the rise of the right wing. People feel that such views are legitimised by the recent election results.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does she agree that one benefit of being in the EU is Erasmus, which enables students from this country to go to other European countries to study and learn more about other European cultures? Given that xenophobia and the views that she spoke about are on the rise, cultural understanding is more important than ever.
Carol Monaghan
I agree completely. Going to university is not just about learning; it is also about diversity and experiencing different cultures. My son has just started at university, and one of the things he looked at when he chose his university was whether it participated in the Erasmus scheme, which is now under threat. He is not alone. Many young students thought they were signing up for something, but will potentially have it taken from them.
Sticking with people, the brain drain of the 1980s was considered by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). She suggested the potential for its repetition, which could be one of the most dangerous aspects of Brexit. We need to work hard to ensure that that does not happen.
The recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. The report called for the Government to make an immediate commitment to researchers already working in our universities—not a reciprocal agreement, not a “If you let ours stay, we’ll let yours stay”, because those people need certainty, and they need it now. The position of our universities worldwide is under threat if we do not get that right.
The biggest damage and the biggest threat to our higher education is the threat to freedom of movement. For Scottish universities, freedom of movement and talent is the most important aspect of being a member of the EU. I am sure that that is the case throughout the UK.
The existing visa restrictions and the removal of the post-study work visa have taken on new significance as we move towards Brexit. How will EU students be viewed? I do not share the opinion of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex that we will be able to milk more money out of them by calling them international students. Unfortunately, the reality is that they will simply not come. Unless we get that right, we have a real big problem.
Talking about the EU, we have Irish students who come to study here as well. The Ireland Act 1949 states clearly that Ireland is “not a foreign country”. How will Irish students be considered as we move towards Brexit?
I have great respect for the Minister, so perhaps I should not be the one sitting here this morning to question him. What guarantees will he give to EU researchers already in our higher education institutions—what non-reciprocal guarantees? The greatest assurance is needed if we are to protect higher education in the UK.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up this debate for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Davies.
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing the debate and for making a characteristically powerful and entertaining speech to set the context. She was right to highlight the absence of a Brexit Minister from the debate today, because that team is leading the negotiations. I join in the plaudits for the Minister who has joined the debate, and we are all reassured by his views on the issues, but we need to know that those views will be reflected in Government.
This is a hugely important debate about a vital sector, and I welcome the many contributions from all parts of the Opposition. It is disappointing—I am sure the Minister is disappointed—that so few Conservative Members are willing to speak up for our universities in such an important debate.
Our universities are a great British success story. Higher education exports are worth almost £11 billion. The wider value was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on universities’ success, and they provide the high-level skills that our economy needs. In a world in which our success as a country will be determined by our ability to innovate, the research capacity of our universities is central to economic growth, as my hon. Friend highlighted.
All of that is potentially at risk if the Government get Brexit wrong. What would getting it wrong look like? What are the risks? Let us start with students, who after all are the bread and butter of our universities. International students, as many have pointed out, are hugely important. About 185,000 of our 500,000 international students are from the EU. Their future is uncertain and, under the sort of regime that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) talked about, many are unlikely to come to the UK.
We are not talking only about EU students. In a survey taken before 23 June, one third of non-EU students said that they would find the UK a less attractive destination if we exited. The worst outcome, therefore, might be that we lose half our international students—billions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of jobs, not only in universities, but across sectors that serve students in communities throughout the country.
We might imagine that the Government would seek to mitigate such risks by setting out a clear strategy to maintain our position as a destination of choice for the world’s students, but sadly not. Instead, the Home Secretary has put international students at the centre of her plans to cut net migration, making a bad situation worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton was right to highlight that net migration point.
The question of staff was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Because our universities are so good, they attract great staff from all over the world: 28% of academics are non-UK citizens, with more than 15% from the EU. For key research staff the number is much higher, accounting for more than half in some STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects. Those of us who represent universities have already heard stories about job offers refused and those here now questioning their future in the UK, because the Government will not give the assurance this House asked for in July on the position of EU nationals.
If we leave the EU with no deal on the future movement of workers, we will fall back on existing immigration rules, and for universities that will not work. Tens of thousands of early-career academics and researchers will not meet the tier 2 income threshold, creating a potential crisis for research and teaching.
Let us talk about research funding and the collaboration that goes with it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) did so ably. Because our universities are so good, we do disproportionately well from EU funding. EU programmes provide almost 15% of university research income, and with that money comes critical collaboration across countries and disciplines. All of that is at risk if research is not put centre stage in the Brexit negotiations.
What do we need from the Brexit negotiations? First, we need a plan. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex to say that civil servants are playing catch-up, but the problem is that Conservative Members and Ministers at the heart of Government seem unable to agree on what that plan should be. As they struggle with each other, in the policy vacuum the tail is increasingly wagging the dog, giving rise to increasing talk of hard Brexit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton is right: this debate is a microcosm of a wider one on many issues. For universities, what would hard Brexit mean? Hard Brexit would mean losing students and staff, and cutting research—it would be a disaster. So we need reassurance from the Minister that the Government—not just him and his Department, but the Government—recognise the problem, and that they will put the continuing strength of our universities at the heart of the negotiations on exiting the European Union.
Among other key issues, we need clarity on fee levels and access to funding for EU students considering coming here until we leave the EU. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, we have that for next year, but frankly that is not good enough. What about 2018-19? Will the assurance apply to postgraduate students as well as undergraduates? What about the future? Will the Minister confirm his views on the immigration status of existing and prospective EU students and their right to remain in the UK after graduation for work or postgraduate study? Will he support the benefits accruing to UK students from the Erasmus programme by confirming that the Government intend to seek continued participation in it?
On staff, will the Minister press for the earliest confirmation that EU nationals working in our universities will be able to stay for the indefinite future on existing terms without having to apply for leave to remain? Will he go further—this is crucial—and extend that right to those who join our universities in the pre-Brexit period until 2019, because that will be critical for the ability of our universities to continue to recruit? What representations is he making about future visa arrangements post-Brexit, so that our universities are in a position to continue to enjoy the benefits of securing the services of the most talented academics from the EU and the rest of the world?
On research, will the Minister give a clear commitment that the Government will prioritise research and innovation in their negotiations, with a view to ensuring continued UK participation in EU research programmes not just for the full duration of Horizon 2020, as he has assured us in the past, but in all its successor programmes? Will he outline, beyond the announcement that we expect from the Chancellor this afternoon, what plans the Government have to strengthen support for research and innovation more widely to mitigate the potential damage from leaving the European Union?
One vice-chancellor recently described to me the challenge that our universities face as “existential”. If the Government get this wrong, it will be a calamity for the sector. If it is a calamity for the sector, it will be a calamity for the economy and the country. So will the Minister, by addressing the points that my hon. Friends have made and the questions that I have put to him, explain just how the Government will avoid that potential disaster and ensure the continued success of our university sector?
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Happily, it falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this debate. I am glad that it falls to me rather than a colleague in another Department, because this is an important issue on which I am happy to represent the entire Government’s position.
The debate is timely, because the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and its possible effects on higher education affect all Members in the Chamber and institutions across the country. This matter is of great importance, and the Government are giving considerable thought to its management, as hon. Members would expect. Higher education is clearly one of our great national assets. Hon. Members who served on the Higher Education and Research Bill Committee will be aware of how keenly the Government feel about this question and how strongly we want to help the sector through these times so we can move to calmer waters and continue to strengthen what is undoubtedly a world-class system.
In global league tables, four UK universities are in the world’s top 10 and 18 are in the world’s top 100. Those universities are home to world-class teaching and research, and we want that to continue in the years ahead. I am sure that hon. Members will have welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement at the CBI conference on Monday that the Government plan to commit an extra £2 billion a year by 2020 to support research activities across the country in our university system. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that that underscores this Government’s determination to put science and innovation at the forefront of the new industrial strategy. We promised that we would do that, and we are delivering on that. I hope that in his speech this afternoon, the Chancellor will provide further details that will give hon. Members even greater confidence that the Government are clearly putting their money where their mouth is—behind our universities.
Research and innovation are key drivers of this country’s global competitiveness and key sources of economic advantage for us. Our HE sector can be proud not only of UK science: the universities across our nations are also leaders in social sciences and the arts and humanities. But we are not complacent about our success. We recognise that the EU referendum has brought uncertainty for our universities and their students and staff, particularly the non-UK EU nationals among them. We have taken steps to mitigate that uncertainty where we can, be it in relation to the terms on which EU students can access finance or the terms on which we can underwrite research funding.
I will come back to those points shortly, but I want first to reflect on the UK’s knowledge landscape. As I said, our science system is one of the very best in the world. It is highly efficient, competitive and internationally successful. Among the G7 countries, we have stand-out impact rates; ours is perhaps the most productive science base when measured by papers or citations per unit of GDP. We punch well above our weight, and we want that to continue. We recognise that our universities’ world-class academic staff are central to that outperformance and our extraordinary bang per buck.
Mr Andrew Smith
Is the Minister in a position to confirm reports that the Home Secretary is reviewing and revising her previously proposed limits on universities’ visa powers in relation to students who want to stay to work?
Joseph Johnson
In her party conference speech, the Home Secretary announced that she was conducting a review and would be consulting on arrangements for non-European economic area migration, including the study route. The process leading up to that consultation is still under way.
Ian Murray
What representations has the Minister made to the Home Office and the Prime Minister to try to win the argument that we should be taking students out of the immigration numbers to resolve all these issues?
Joseph Johnson
It is important for hon. Members to recognise that we already have a strong offer. We are second in the world after only the US in terms of the number of international students who come to study in this country—according to Home Office figures, the number of students coming here has risen by 14% since 2010—and we continue to be successful in attracting international students. We should not create an impression that we have closed off as a country, because that is clearly not borne out by the facts. It is not borne out by the successful recruitment of many institutions in this country. I would not want to create an impression that we were closed, because we are not; we welcome international students and we want to continue to do so.
As I said, the quality of the staff at our institutions is central to the UK’s outperformance, and we want them to feel welcome and that the Government appreciate their contributions to our institutions. We want to give them the assurances that they need to feel confident that they can continue to embed the richness that they bring to our institutions.
We also derive benefits from EU students. Hon. Members have referred several times to the contribution that EU students make to our institutions’ health. We want those students to continue to study here. We are extraordinarily successful in that respect. In 2013, 20% of EU students who chose to study overseas chose the UK—the greatest proportion of any country. We also welcome those who choose to study for a short time under the Erasmus programme. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked what the Government’s plans were for future involvement with Erasmus. Post-exit access to Erasmus will be a matter for the negotiations that he knows will follow the triggering of article 50. We will work through the implications for future years as part of those wider negotiations.
I completely share the determination of the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—and I underscore the Government’s absolute determination—to show that we are welcoming and will not tolerate hate crimes of any sort in our universities or our country. Since the referendum, the Government have worked closely with the police to monitor hate crime and ensure that local forces have the necessary assistance and guidance to respond, and police forces are responding robustly to incidents. Ministers and officials have also met ambassadors and high commissioners from EU states and offered them reassurance and a single point of contact to raise concerns on behalf of their citizens.
In the remaining minute or so, I will skip forward to deal with the points that were raised about research, which is clearly of great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central asked what relationship we will have with future Horizon 2020 programmes. The short answer is that it is too early to speculate about the UK’s future relationship with those programmes. There are already several models for co-operation by non-EU countries on research with the EU and EU member states, and there may be areas where the benefits of collaboration to both sides provide a case for ongoing co-operation. Again, that will be a matter for the negotiations about our future relationship. We are keenly aware that the matter is of great importance to the university sector, and it is fully represented in the thinking of the Cabinet Committee on Brexit, on which the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy sits.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Clinical Commissioning: North Durham
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered changes in clinical commissioning group commissioning practices for GP referrals in North Durham.
I asked for this debate as a result of a development that affects many in my constituency and other constituencies covered by the North Durham clinical commissioning group. I was made aware of it not by the clinical commissioning group but by “BBC Look North”, which received a tip-off from a GP about an upcoming change to the way GPs refer patients to a specialist. The change made by North Durham CCG fundamentally alters the way in which a GP refers a patient to a specialist.
It was always the case that if a GP saw a patient and considered that their health condition needed further investigation, they would be able to refer that patient directly to a specialist. The scheme introduced by North Durham CCG adds an additional layer of referral: if a GP wants to refer a patient, they must send a letter and medical records explaining why to a private health company called About Health, which will decide whether a patient should be referred to a specialist. That means that, in effect, a private company that has never seen the patient can overrule the decision of the patient’s GP to refer them to a specialist in a hospital. Conditions that would be referred under the new system include cardiology, gynaecology, dermatology and gastroenterology. Suspected cancer cases would be excluded from the system, although many cancers are detected when patients present with other health issues.
The decision to implement the scheme was taken following a year-long trial carried out by North Tyneside CCG. We do not yet know the clinical outcomes of the patients involved in that trial, but North Durham decided to roll out the scheme even without that information. North Durham CCG’s decision to adopt the new practice for referrals was also made without proper consultation of local residents or patients. Many patients were not even informed that confidential information about their health status was being shared with a private company. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I had a meeting with the clinical commissioning group in September, only weeks before it introduced the new scheme, and yet it made no mention of the scheme whatever.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I am listening to the debate with astonishment. General practitioners, by their very name, are generalists, are highly trained and should be aware of the signs and symptoms of diseases and know who to refer patients to, but the intervention of a private company has been inserted as a barrier to patients getting specialist treatment. I cannot believe what I am hearing. I am sure my hon. Friend shares my surprise.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, I was shocked and surprised. In fact, when “BBC Look North” presented me with the information, my immediate reaction was of huge concern for my constituents. I did an interview for “BBC Look North” and was then contacted by other news outlets. As a result of those interviews, I was contacted by many of my constituents, some of whom had already been adversely affected by the new referral system, and by GPs who said they were being forced to jump through hoops or to refer their patients unnecessarily to physiotherapy services when they knew that treatment would not help before they could refer to a specialist in a hospital.
I was also contacted by a GP in the area covered by North Tyneside CCG who said that he had referred a patient to a specialist for a skin condition but the referral was overruled by the new scheme, which is called the referral management system. The skin condition turned out to be cancer, but that was not discovered until months further down the line, which meant that far more radical surgery was required than would have been the case if the patient had been seen by a specialist when the GP first referred them.
I therefore have a number of serious concerns about the referral system and the way in which the decision to implement it was made. My first concern is the possible negative impact on the health of my constituents and other people who live in areas affected by the new patient referral management schemes. I am concerned because whether a referral to a specialist goes ahead or not could have a long-term impact on the health of the patient or even result in something more serious, especially if decisions are overturned by About Health. A patient might not receive the treatment they need early enough.
I am also concerned about the financial impact of the decision. I understand that the NHS is under considerable financial pressure, but I doubt whether the scheme will end up saving money in the long run. That is because, as I just set out, in many cases where referrals are rejected the problem does not go away and patients return to their GP or even go to A&E with far more serious problems, which take up more of the NHS’ time and resources. About Health, the private company deciding on referrals, will be paid a basic fee and an additional £10 for each referral letter, which in itself will incur a significant cost. I am therefore not at all sure that the scheme is cost-effective.
My final concern is about the lack of public consultation and information on the decision to implement the scheme. Last October, the Secretary of State for Health announced plans to rate CCGs to make
“the most patient-focused NHS culture ever”,
which would be
“much more accountable to their local population than previously.”
The decision made by North Durham CCG to change completely the way in which GPs can refer a patient to a specialist without any consultation flies in the face of CCGs being accountable to the local population. How are people supposed to hold a CCG to account if they are not aware of changes that are being made?
The North Durham patient reference group meets monthly in Durham city to discuss patients’ points of view and give feedback to the CCG about proposals and issues. The group, which is drawn from members of each GP practice forum across Durham, was informed of the new referral scheme only as it was about to be introduced, and it was not given any opportunity to give feedback on proposals. Despite meeting monthly, members of the group had not even heard about the plans before they were presented with them and told that they were to be introduced imminently.
Similarly, members of patient forums at local GP practices were informed of the decision, rather than consulted on it. I am told that patient forums and the North Durham patient reference group were concerned and opposed the immediate implementation of the proposals, but North Durham CCG decided to go ahead and implement the new scheme immediately in any case.
This is a really important point for the Minister. If a patient goes on to the CCG’s website, what they see does not tell them that their details will be given to a private company; they are simply told that a referral system is in place and that referrals are to “consultants” or “specialist GPs”. I think many patients would conclude from that wording that their medical information is to be sent to a specialist at a local hospital rather than to a private company.
I have written to the CCGs in the north-east to invite them to meet me and other members of the northern group of MPs to discuss this issue. It has been extremely difficult to get them to come to a meeting with us or indeed to get any information from them at all. I have some questions, which I will put quickly, to give my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham time to speak. Does the Minister know of any other clinical commissioning groups in the UK that have implemented a patient referral management service? Does he think that it is acceptable that no consultation was carried out? Will the practice be repeated by other CCGs across the UK—particularly ones ranked as in special measures? How can About Health, or other private companies, be held accountable if decisions result in negative outcomes for the health of patients? Does the Minister agree that the referral system is acceptable at all?
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Both the Minister and the Member who moved the debate have agreed that Kevan Jones and Julie Cooper may speak, on the understanding that they will speak for under five minutes and two minutes respectively.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) on securing the debate.
The decision of the North Durham CCG raises some fundamental questions about how the NHS is run in North Durham, and our constituents’ relationship with the NHS. As my hon. Friend described, there was no consultation of my constituents about the decision, which was taken in secret. There was no transparency at all, nor any consultation with Members of Parliament in the CCG area or any local elected officials. The decision changes the fundamental relationship of trust between a patient and their GP. My constituents have never been asked for permission for our private medical information to be passed to a private company—and neither have I or my hon. Friend. We have not been asked whether the company has our individual permissions. In many cases I do not think constituents have even been told by their GPs that the information is being passed to a private company.
What is the legal position on the giving of my private medical information, and that of my constituents, to a third party? Who is responsible for ensuring that it is secure? Do I have a right, given that it is my personal medical information, to withhold permission for it to be passed to a private third sector organisation? I certainly do not think that patients in North Durham are being told that that is happening. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the website does not give the impression that the information is being given to a third party.
The way the decision was taken was shameless. As my hon. Friend has already said, we met the CCG in September and there was no mention of the contract at all. I want to ask why. One of my constituents, Keith Johnson, raised concerns and the CCG responded:
“GPs have responsibility to make best use of NHS resources and need up to date evidence and advice to be able to treat patients in practice or to refer on appropriately. Unnecessary outpatient appointments are a large cost to the NHS.”
I do not think anyone would disagree, but that is the job of GPs; it is not up to a private sector organisation, or anyone else who has never seen the patient, to decide whether they should be referred to a specialist.
My concern is not just the way the decision is being implemented, but the fact that it fundamentally breaks down the trust that we all value, and the confidentiality between us and our GP. I am also concerned that the more articulate constituents and patients will insist on getting care; some others will not. There will be rationing of care, depending on people’s ability to make their case. That goes to the principle at the heart of the NHS—care being free at the point of need.
I have questions about the way the contract was let. We have had no information about how that happened. Was it by competitive tender? Did any individuals employed by the CCG have any pecuniary interest in awarding the contract? How will it be evaluated? What ability will patients have to say whether they agree with the outcomes? I challenge the North Durham CCG to publish the contract and all information and decision making about how it was awarded, because the cloak of secrecy around it is a disgrace. I also challenge it to scrap the contract and answer a basic question: why is it treating its patients with such contempt?
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) for bringing this important subject to the fore. I have a few comments. First, on the question of the impact on patients, what assessment has been made about conditions going untreated? There has been nothing about safety implications. Patients could be affected in two ways: a condition might be untreated and, as has been mentioned, their private, confidential information would go to a private company where the people are not medically trained. We have already seen from other contracts, such as with Capita, total disrespect in the handling of patient records.
Secondly, what is happening is a challenge to the professionalism of general practitioners. We spend a lot of time and money, over many years, on training experts. No wonder we cannot retain staff in the NHS if this is how we treat them. Some important questions need to be answered. The whole thing is cloaked in secrecy. There is an underhand feel to it. It is important that we get answers to a lot of questions. Can the Minister tell us who decided that what is happening was okay? Why has there been no public consultation or transparency? Where is the risk assessment? Why were patients not informed that confidential information about their health was being shared with a private company? How much is the company paid for its role? How much has been saved? How many referrals have been cancelled? We need the answers because what is being done is rationing by the back door, with the potential to compromise patient safety.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) on obtaining the debate, and I congratulate the other hon. Members who spoke too. It is good to have a chance to discuss the matter and weigh up the pros and cons of what is being done.
The context is the CCG in the hon. Lady’s area, which consists of 31 GP practices. It has been rated as a good CCG by the Care Quality Commission. Its treatment referral time is above the national standard, at 92% within 18 weeks. I want to talk first about the policy area, and then about the specifics of the decision to employ About Health in North Tyneside and North Durham.
The first thing to say about the policy is that referral management is not a new area. In 2007, something like 70% of primary care trusts had a type of referral management system in place. The intention is fairly clear: when a GP is making a referral, it will be absolutely obvious in many cases that it needs to happen. In many other cases it will be clear that a referral is not needed. There will also, frankly, be a grey area in the middle—that will happen in any profession.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Will the Minister focus on this specific referral system, under which, we understand, all referrals to specialists from GP practices in the CCG area are subject to private company screening and there is also a target to send back at least 50% of all referrals made?
David Mowat
I was explaining the purpose of the policy and the fact that this referral mechanism was used widely in 2007. A King’s Fund report from 2010 sets out the pros and cons of using referral management—I suggest the hon. Lady reads it.
These things are not new. They are a mechanism by which a consultant, or a GP with a specialist interest in the area of what is being referred—there are six areas of referral in this CCG, as the hon. Lady said—has two to three days to either accept that the referral goes on to the secondary system, or to contact the GP and have a discussion about what the best alternative pathway might be. There is an appeals process if the GP does not agree with that decision.
The hon. Lady asked where else such referral management was being done across the NHS in England. It was introduced in 2007, as I said, and it is being done very commonly. It is being done in Bromley, Cambridge, Peterborough, Imperial in London, and Southampton. I saw a similar system in Tower Hamlets to the one working in her area—indeed, the GP was very proud of the way they reacted, with an email referral system, when there was every possibility of things not going ahead.
This is not rationing. It is completely wrong to say that. It was brought in by the CCG, which is GP-led. If the GPs in the CCG do not agree with it, they have the mechanism to replace the chairman of the CCG.
Mr Kevan Jones
I understand what the Minister is saying, but what about the patient? Where does the patient come into this? If I go to my GP and he says I need a referral, that is between me and my GP. If it was not for my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) or the BBC raising this, none of my constituents—or myself and my hon. Friend, who are patients of the CCG—would have known about it. Will the Minister please answer the point about the patients?
David Mowat
The point I was in the middle of making—which I will finish making—is that if the GPs in the CCG have difficulty with the scheme, they have the mechanism to replace the CCG chairman and therefore to not go ahead with the scheme, so the GPs in his area are presumably content with it.
David Mowat
The fact is that the GPs vote for the head of the CCG who has put the scheme into place. On the patient issue, which is a fair one, if the patient expresses a preference to go to a secondary or an acute hospital and have an appointment, which could typically be six to eight weeks away, of course that is part of the process, and of course the referral management schemes will take that into account.
Mr Jones
I am sorry, that is not the case. In North Durham, patients have not been told about it. If I went to a GP who said I needed a referral, I would not be told that. What the Minister is saying is in complete contrast to what he told me during a debate on coeliac disease a few weeks ago, in which he condemned CCGs for not consulting people before awarding contracts.
David Mowat
We are moving around a little bit here, but I will come to the point about consultation. The GP that the hon. Gentleman refers to is a part of a CCG that has made the decision to extend the North Tyneside pilot to North Durham. All I am saying is that those GPs are part of the CCG and that presumably the CCG is doing this because it believes the clinical out-turns are right. We have a locally driven system. I will make some progress on the benefits of this for patients.
David Mowat
I will make some progress; I have taken a lot of interventions.
The benefits to patients are that a consultant will review their case within two or three days of a GP referral and a decision will be made on the appropriate pathway. That is why the King’s Fund recommended these sorts of systems in 2010—in terms of patient out-turns—and that is why it is of benefit to patients.
One example that the hon. Member for City of Durham talked about was a skin case that resulted in cancer. That is a very serious situation, and if it happened in the way that she says, it should be investigated. Another example is when a patient with acne was referred to a dermatologist at a hospital. The referral system said, “Why have we not tried a cream for this first?” That process was put into place two or three days later, as opposed to having an eight-week wait for a specialist appoint. That is of benefit to the patient.
David Mowat
I have given way a lot; I want to make some progress.
That is also of benefit to GPs, because they can quickly validate decisions on the best pathway for those grey areas that may or may not require a referral with a consultant who knows more than them about that particular discipline. Of course, it is of benefit to the providers because it takes away something like 20% of unnecessary outpatient appointments. Indeed, one of the providers for the scheme in North Tyneside has asked for it to be extended to an additional discipline, because they feel that some of the referrals they receive are unnecessary and that the referral management system—in the way we have been doing it in the NHS for the past decade—is a mechanism for preventing that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The only information that North Tyneside CCG has put into the public domain is how much money it has saved through this system. It has not made an assessment of clinical outcomes for patients at all.
David Mowat
I am going to talk about the About Health situation and the people who have been awarded the contract in North Durham. It is a one-year pilot that builds on the one-year scheme in North Tyneside. I think it started last month; it covers six disciplines and it does not cover urgent referrals, in particular cancer. All the national requirements for referral-to-treatment times still count in exactly the same way. The local CCG performed a risk analysis before it decided to take the scheme forward and build on what happened in North Tyneside, and the scheme is monitored.
I have been told that a very important feature is that there is a clear GP appeals process. If they are not happy with a decision that has been taken, that process can happen very quickly.
David Mowat
The GP represents the patients in the health system; that is the fact of the matter. If there are out-turns that are detrimental to patients, as the hon. Member for City of Durham implied, that is a serious situation and should be investigated.
About Health is CQC-regulated—with all that goes with that—in exactly the same way as a GP practice. It is staffed by NHS consultants and GPs with a particular interest. As I said, there is a two or three-day turnaround, and they have to have the same indemnity cover as everybody else. Part of what the CCG is doing is to save money—that is true. Inappropriate outpatient appointments mean that more people than necessary are working. If that can be reduced, there is a cost saving to the national health service. It is about optimising pathways.
David Mowat
I will make a little bit more progress and let the hon. Gentleman in later.
This is about stopping inappropriate treatment; it is absolutely not about rationing. If it was about rationing, the whole referral management system would not have been first introduced by the last Labour Government. I think it is incredible that that point has not come across more strongly.
One of the concerns is that About Health is a private company. It is a private organisation that has won the contract, and the local CCG made that decision. Fair questions were asked about the confidentiality of patient records, in terms of them going across a boundary to a private company. My first point, which is an obvious one, is that GP practices are all private companies. Every partner that works in a GP practice works in a private company, in the same way that the GPs who work for About Health are working for a private company. However, all the requirements around patient confidentiality that About Health needs to make sure are in place apply in exactly the same way as they do in every other part of the national health service.
David Mowat
I was going to come to the point about consultation—I do not have a great deal of time left now. It is right to say there was no consultation on this, and that is because this is an administrative process change. There is no service change—
David Mowat
We are clearly not going to agree on this point, but there is no service change in what is being done.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Diabetes Technologies
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to diabetes technologies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. It is also good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), in her place; I served under her chairmanship when she chaired the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I intend to use this debate to consider what can be done to accelerate access to new, innovative diabetes technologies.
This is a complex subject. I know there are patients who would benefit from technologies such as insulin pumps and glucose monitoring systems but are not able to access them. For many, access to diabetes technologies will have a transforming effect on their lives, enabling them to live full lives, be economically active and reduce the burden on primary and secondary care.
First, I recognise that progress is being made in this area. The intention behind the debate is to highlight the opportunity we have dramatically to transform people’s lives by accelerating access to diabetes technologies. I am here not to criticise but to say, as my schoolteachers regularly said to me, “You could do better,” because I believe we can in this area. Secondly, I want to use this opportunity to pay credit to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on vascular disease, and in particular its inquiry into patient access to technology last summer. The APPG recognised that access to technology facilitates the earlier and more accurate identification of people at potential risk of diabetes-related complications.
I want to refer to three of the 12 recommendations listed in the APPG’s report. The first is that the NHS must consider steps to become more flexible when commissioning or supporting the commissioning of new technologies designed to improve patient outcomes. Its second recommendation is that the NHS and industry should work together to harness innovation and promote better treatment for patients. Thirdly, it recommends that NHS England should consider how to introduce measures to incentivise the screening and diagnosis of patients at risk of peripheral arterial disease in primary care settings. Those recommendations help me to impress on the Minister a matter of great urgency, importance and opportunity for diabetic patients in the UK.
I would like us to consider the need to accelerate access to existing technologies; how the NHS can accelerate the development, testing and application of new technologies; and how information technology can be used to inform and educate patients, giving them greater power to manage their condition and lead full and free lives.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. He will be aware that in our schools today there is a problem with young children administering insulin where teachers are not trained to do it and cannot, because of child protection rules. If new and innovative technologies were used, we could perhaps get over that difficulty.
Derek Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will speak later about the opportunity as regards children. If we do not help them to manage their condition, the complications later on are significant indeed.
I do not intend to go over the sheer scale of the problem of diabetes in the UK and its impact on people’s quality of life, our health system, community and social care services and economic productivity. We all know the stats. Despite that, it is my belief that the NHS fails to take full advantage of the latest technology available to patients, including flash glucose monitoring technology, known as FGM. That issue is being targeted by NHS England via the national obesity and diabetes prevention programme. The programme is a joint initiative between NHS England, Public Health England and Diabetes UK, and it aims significantly to reduce the 5 million people in the UK expected to have diabetes by 2025.
Flash glucose monitoring technology is available to support the NHS and NHS England to achieve their objectives related to diabetes. Today’s debate is an opportunity to see how the Government might take full advantage of that and other technologies in the future. It is timely therefore to concentrate our minds briefly on the benefits of technologies such as flash glucose monitoring. Just a few years ago, who would have thought that someone with diabetes could turn their back on routine finger pricking to test their glucose readings and instead rely confidently on readings taken via a small sensor worn on the body?
Just a few years ago, diabetics must have dreamt of a day when they could take a glucose reading as many times a day as they liked, without having to worry about pain, discomfort, inconvenience or running out of test strips. Imagine a world where schoolchildren or people in full-time employment avoided the interruption of finger prick testing and the stigma of testing in public. That world exists, and accelerated access to FGM, which delivers those benefits, could help to improve people’s health, avoiding the need for people who are in work to take extra sick leave by simply enabling better management of their condition.
Flash glucose monitoring provides a current glucose reading, an eight-hour history and information about the direction glucose is going in. That allows people to monitor whether their glucose levels are rising or falling quickly and can support them to take action before their condition worsens. That can only be a plus for patients, GPs and the wider health system. Furthermore, long-term accurate data on glucose levels must be invaluable for clinicians and patients as they make choices about how they manage diabetes.
I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. How confident is she that patients are accessing the treatments and technologies that are available today? What action is required of the Department of Health to ensure that the patient pathway is smooth, well signposted and not too long? Are clinicians fully aware of what technologies are available and how to operate them? Are they equipped to train patients to operate these technologies and make the best use of any data provided? What more can the Minister do to apply pressure to clinical commissioning groups to make diabetes technologies such as insulin pumps and glucose monitoring systems available? I know of patients in my constituency who have waited and waited before getting an insulin pump. In the meantime, their condition has been unbearable, and living any sort of normal life has not been possible. I am glad to say that once they get the insulin pump, their lives are transformed. However, I know others who still wait.
I want to move on to the opportunity we have to embrace emerging technology. One of the greatest developments in healthcare and public health must be the availability and use of emerging technologies. In 2004, Derek Wanless described the NHS as a “late and slow adopter” of innovation. I know that the Government are committed to improving that and to taking advantage of the opportunities on offer from innovative technologies. An excellent example of that is the commissioning through evaluation programme, launched in 2013, which was an innovative solution to the problem of developing real-world data to support the use of innovative medical procedures. I would like the Minister to shed some light on where we are with that programme.
I recognise that CTE set out to accelerate treatments for a far wider group of illnesses and conditions and should be a subject for another Westminster Hall debate. However, commissioning through evaluation is an example of good forward thinking that has been successful in accelerating access to treatments for patients and is the perfect tool for accelerating diabetes technologies and treatments. The reality is that patients, the NHS and UK plc will see the benefit if we find ways quickly to develop the technologies and give patients accelerated access.
Finally, I am keen to know what role the Department believes information technology has in informing and educating people so that they can play a greater role in managing their condition. If a diabetic only gets to see a specialist once a year, can online information help to close the gap? What responsibility does the Department of Health have to ensure that patients with diabetes are signposted to reliable, safe and helpful information? Should the Department actively back charities such as Diabetes UK, so that people have confidence about to whom they should turn? I would also like the Minister to outline what role she believes information technology can play in informing and educating people with diabetes.
I am glad to have secured the debate. This is one of the most pressing issues facing us today, and there is a great opportunity ahead of us. It is an opportunity for patients, because if we get this right, they will be able to manage their condition much more effectively and will be much more likely to be active in the world of work. We will be able to hold off lower limb amputations and sight loss and offer a much brighter future for people with diabetes.
There is also an opportunity in relation to health and social care. One in five hospital admissions for heart failure, heart attack and stroke is of a person who has diabetes, so by getting this right and ensuring that patients have access to advanced technologies, we can reduce the burden on primary and secondary care and reduce the £14 billion spent annually on diabetes in the NHS. The savings potentially go further when we consider the costs associated with adapting people’s homes and workplaces following amputations or sight loss, for example.
There are also opportunities for UK plc. If we get this right, the UK will be seen as the place to do research and development, and manufacturing. It must be the aspiration of the Government for the UK to become a hotbed of innovation, and I am certain that the NHS could exploit its sheer size and buying power much more effectively, giving UK patients the best access to the latest treatments.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) both on raising this very important subject and on the constructive and helpful manner in which he raised it.
I intend to confine my remarks to type 1 diabetes and, in particular, young type 1 diabetics. I should say that I am indebted to both Diabetes UK and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation for the very helpful briefing that they provided and for the important work that they do on behalf of people with diabetes.
Diabetes, whether type 1 or type 2, is a life-changing condition regardless of the age at which it is diagnosed, but for young type 1 diabetics, it is also a lifelong challenge. Young type 1 diabetics face a daily and lifelong routine of monitoring glucose levels and administering the appropriate doses of insulin. It is not insignificant that one quarter of hospital admissions for ketoacidosis are of 16 to 25-year-olds; that is quite a shocking statistic.
At the same time, dealing with the transition to adulthood, with all the attendant biological, psychological and physiological changes that occur, can be even more challenging for young diabetics and their families. Many young diabetics face bullying. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to a problem in schools. Quite often, because of the misconception about what type 1 diabetes is, young diabetics will face taunts: “Well, it’s your own fault because you don’t eat properly”, “You’re overweight” and so on. It is bad enough that young diabetics face bullying in school. Very often, as the hon. Gentleman signified, schools simply do not know how to deal with this issue.
One thing about being a type 1 diabetic is that because their blood glucose levels can be very unreliable, they sometimes need to take glucose, which means that at a certain point their absolute priority is to eat something. They have to be able to eat something to even out their blood sugar levels, yet all too often teachers will not allow them to use the classroom in those circumstances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
indicated assent.
Mr Howarth
I see the Minister nodding. This really is a problem. Schools need to be advised on how to deal with these situations, so that in every classroom the teacher is aware, whether or not they have a type 1 diabetic in their class, of what they are supposed to do in those circumstances. The lack of understanding in many schools—not all of them, as some deal with the matter very well—must be tackled.
However, I do not want to be overly gloomy about the problem. Organisations such as the JDRF and Diabetes UK, in conjunction with others, including the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, of which I am a member, are both raising the profile of the way type 1 diabetics are being failed by the healthcare system and suggesting constructive ways of improving the situation. Later today there will be the launch of a report, not specifically on type 1 diabetes but on how services can be better organised. That is the result of many months of taking evidence from expert organisations. I hope that Ministers will study that report closely.
With regard to progress, scientific research is making great headway. The hon. Member for St Ives, who opened the debate, highlighted some of the scientific research going on and the technologies that are available. It is in my view highly likely that a cure will be found well within the lifetime of today’s young diabetics. Building on the technology that already allows automatic continuous glucose monitoring and automatically pumped insulin, an algorithm for combining the two into an artificial pancreas already exists. The hope is that it will not be long before that technology becomes the norm. More development work is going on, but the research and tests that have been carried out indicate that that system works and can bring about a massive improvement in the lives of young people and others who suffer from diabetes, because it enables them to keep their blood glucose at an even level.
I want to say a few words about a particular problem that some young type 1 diabetes sufferers experience. As we know, as a society we face a problem—particularly, although by no means exclusively, among young women—as regards body image. The media, magazines and society in general put forward an idealised view of what a woman or, for that matter, a man should look like. We know about eating disorders that arise from that wholly inappropriate promotion of a “perfect” shape. I do not profess to be an expert on this issue, but my experience of life is that human beings come in all shapes and sizes, none of which is more acceptable than another—but that is just a personal view. However, some young type 1 diabetics discover—this is easy to find out through social media—that by manipulating their insulin intake, they can achieve rapid weight loss. To some young people, that sounds like a great thing to be able to do. Someone can lose perhaps half a stone in a week simply by not taking the amount of insulin that they require. Of course, the problem is that it leads to major medical complications and, in some cases, can end fatally.
Those who do fall into the habit, which amounts to a highly specialised eating disorder, need to be able to access support from diabetologists and from either psychological or psychiatric specialists. All too often, though, that support is not available—at least not in one place—at the time when the young person needs it most and they are left trying to negotiate a sort of medical specialists ping-pong game between, on the one hand, diabetologists, who do not understand the psychological problem that the young person is experiencing, and on the other hand psychologists or psychiatrists, who do not understand all the scientific and medical issues about their diabetes. I know that that is not the Minister’s specific area of responsibility—[Interruption.] Oh it is, she tells me, great—but I put in a plea for her to really give some thought to how those services can be co-ordinated in such a way that means those young people are not left travelling from one place to another, often with long distances involved, to try to access support, when all they can get is somebody who understands one aspect of their disease and the particular manifestation of that disease they have. We are not talking about tens of thousands of young people; we are talking about hundreds, but nevertheless these are young lives and they need to have proper access to all the services that they require.
I will conclude with a couple of questions, which are asked in an entirely constructive spirit. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will take an active interest in the research that is going on into technology, and that it will be properly supported? Does she agree that the achievement of making these technologies normal, particularly the artificial pancreas, needs to be pursued with absolute rigorousness? That could be delivered very quickly if the Government took an active interest in it. Will she commit—both through the technological means and better treatment design—to ensuring that the various services that can prevent serious complications are properly integrated so that the medical ping-pong is overcome?
I hope that I have not gone on for too long. Knowing you as I do, Mrs Gillan, I know that you would have told me if I had. Again, I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for giving me the opportunity to say the things that I wanted to say. I am sure that the young diabetics around this country who have the opportunity to do so, will be glad that at least their plight has been raised by at least one Member of this House.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Unless any other Members are seeking to catch my eye, we will move to the wind-ups. I call Mr Martyn Day.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Gillan. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for bringing forward this interesting debate on diabetes technologies. I thank him for his explanation of the position, and would like to publicly agree with him that we need to accelerate access and that we could do better. I am also grateful to him for informing us of flash glucose monitoring—FGM. It is a new technology that I must admit I am not familiar with, and I would have guessed completely wrong, based on its initials, as to what we were discussing.
There can be little doubt that diabetes is the fastest growing health threat of our time and a critical public health matter. It is estimated that more than one in 16 people across the UK has diabetes—be that diagnosed or undiagnosed—and it is worth remembering that around 80% of diabetes complications are preventable, or can at least be significantly delayed through early detection, good care and access to appropriate self-management tools and resources, of which access to diabetes technologies is a fundamental part. With that challenge of the increasing numbers of people with diabetes, access to the technology to help those living with the disease becomes yet ever more important. We can learn much from the different approaches to this issue throughout these isles, and we have heard examples today that are both good and bad. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) informed us of the problems faced by many young people and their experiences at schools. That is a very good example of how we could do better.
Much of the debate centres around the two main technologies: insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors. It is, unfortunately, fair to say that at present the challenges facing sufferers in Scotland in obtaining them are greater than for those in England and Wales. However, much progress is being made and the Scottish Government are committed to ensuring that people living with diabetes have access to the best possible care.
Since 2010, the Scottish Government have set and met targets to increase insulin pump therapy. In Scotland, we have already made good progress in its provision, and by the end of the current Parliament some 6,000 adults—more than 20% of the type 1 diabetes population across Scotland—will have access to insulin pump therapy; currently, the figure is around 9.5%. In 2010, the diabetes action plan called for NHS boards in Scotland to introduce plans to make insulin pump therapy available for patients who would most benefit from it. That was followed, in 2011, by the target that 25% of under-18s with type 1 diabetes should be on insulin pump therapy; that was met by December 2014, and the figure had reached 31.2% by the end of 2015. Good though this progress is, we must still do better.
This form of insulin delivery has made a big difference to those who have received it; however, it is worth remembering that is not always appropriate for everyone. To be successful, insulin pump therapy requires intensive work by the patient in association with the local diabetes team, and requires self-management and monitoring.
Continuous glucose monitoring devices can be extremely useful in helping sufferers to manage and monitor their glucose levels. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network—SIGN—guidance recommends that CGM should not be used routinely for people with diabetes; however, it may be considered for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, as it may be beneficial during pregnancy. As a result of that, provision through the NHS in Scotland is limited. Earlier this month, Shona Robison, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for health, wellbeing and sport in Scotland, confirmed that a national approach is being developed, stating:
“Work is currently on-going to develop a national approach for the use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) devices in Scotland, as we recognise the speed of development of this technology.”
Best practice on provision of CGMs and insulin pumps will continue to evolve with developments in technology. Innovative new approaches to healthcare may prove key to improving the treatment of conditions such as diabetes. The Scottish Government, in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, has funded a £500,000 competition to develop a new technology to help with the management of type l diabetes. To supplement existing education programmes, competition entrants have been asked to develop a mobile health product, which could be an app, a new interface or a new device, to assist people in dealing with their condition. The competition is a good example of working with partners across private, public and third sector organisations to develop a new and innovative solution. At its launch, Dr Lena Wilson, chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, said:
“The economy grows faster when companies embed innovation in all they do. Scotland operates in an increasingly competitive global market so developing and maintaining competitive advantage is imperative. The work underway with NHS Scotland on solutions to the challenges Type 1 diabetic patients face offers an opportunity for more of our SMEs to embrace innovation.”
Of course, the potential benefits of that are not just with the businesses that take part. Managing diabetes accounts for about 10% of the annual NHS Scotland budget —almost £1 billion a year. When 80% of NHS spending on diabetes goes on treating avoidable complications, potentially significant savings can be made through better self-management and use of technologies—and that is before we consider quality of life for the actual sufferers who benefit.
In conclusion, we can do much to improve diabetes education and care for both type l and type 2 diabetics, and diabetes technologies have a key role to play in that process. The challenge is to find effective ways to overcome barriers to implementation, and to facilitate greater access for those who would benefit. I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today’s consensual and informative debate.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Gillan.
I welcome today’s timely debate on access to diabetes technology, which falls in Diabetes Awareness Month. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this important debate and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is not present today, for all his campaigning, work and efforts on the subject over the years.
I also thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who spoke for the Scottish National party, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on his excellent contribution on young people with type 1 diabetes, and for highlighting the worrying danger of abuse by young people who skip insulin in order to lose weight. I had heard of that before, but I am grateful that he brought it to our attention today, so that the Minister may respond. As my right hon. Friend said, it is often due to the pressures of society and body shaming and it can, sadly, often be fatal. It is yet another pressure on these young people: aside from having the diabetes diagnosis in the first place, it is something else that they have to deal with.
I also want to disclose from the off that sadly I was diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic just a year ago, but through getting control of my diet and achieving weight loss, which is still ongoing, my diabetes is thankfully very well under control. This debate is therefore very close to my heart.
More than 4 million people and counting in the UK are now living with diagnosed diabetes. Some 400,000 live with type 1 diabetes, and 29,000 of those are children. I am hopeful that in the future, artificial pancreas technology, which we have heard about today, will be effective, safe and accessible to patients, and that eventually, thanks to important research undertaken by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Diabetes UK and others, we will create a world without diabetes.
However, until that time comes, it is paramount that we do all we can to support adults and children living with the condition. Patients need accessible and high-quality education and support, and access to technology that will allow them to manage their condition and to achieve positive outcomes. Not only will that have a positive effect upon the lives of those 4 million people, especially including children, but it could also reduce NHS spend on diabetes-related complications.
There have been significant advances and improvements in care for people living with diabetes over the last 15 years or so, but it would be an enormous mistake for us to believe that the job was done. It is far from done and a significant amount of work needs to be undertaken to improve diabetes outcomes. That is because more than 24,000 people a year currently still die from a complication or condition related to diabetes, and many more will encounter life-altering, non-fatal complications. It is worth noting that diabetes-related complications account for a staggering 80% of the £10 billion annual NHS spend on diabetes.
Worryingly, there is also a regional dimension to the challenges presented in relation to positive diabetes outcomes. According to the national diabetes audit 2012-13, diabetes education courses are not being commissioned for people in more than a third of areas in England. Moreover, gateway treatment for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes is undertaken through primary care. However, with a GP shortfall of 40% across the north of England—my region—it is clear that accessibility is limited in certain parts of the country. Meanwhile, some CCGs have particularly large concentrations of people with type 2 diabetes and, it has to be said, there are correlations between those areas and socioeconomic disadvantage. The Government might well approach funding allocations with that in mind.
However, the issue we are discussing, which must be considered alongside the aforementioned points, is supporting patients to access technologies easily that will better help them to manage their condition, from insulin pumps to continuous glucose monitors, to flash glucose meters—a lot of them were spoken about by the hon. Member for St Ives. The technologies to which I refer make monitoring blood glucose more convenient for people than a standard blood glucose meter does, and in turn, those technologies can transform peoples’ lives. Continuous glucose monitors—CGMs—such as the Dexcom device, and flash glucose meters, such as the Abbott FreeStyle Libre device, are considered by many to be a less invasive technique than blood glucose meters for measuring blood glucose. They work 24 hours a day and CGMs can include alarms to indicate when glucose levels are too high. That is particularly important for people who do not know that they are experiencing hypoglycaemia, and children who may be unable yet to communicate it.
It is critical that the House understands the importance of blood glucose readings for people living with diabetes—both types—but it is of essential importance for people living with type 1. With type 2 patients, as I have found, blood glucose is usually monitored and controlled over a long period of time and the scope for immediate blood glucose correction is limited. For people living with type 1—people whose control depends upon the use of insulin delivered through an injection or a pump—accurate, real-time data are essential for blood glucose control.
To put it simply: better blood glucose control will result in better outcomes for people living with type 1 or type 2. It will relieve significant pressure on the NHS and result in a significant and positive long-term financial gain. Access to CGMs and flash glucose meters is limited on the NHS, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not recommend that CGMs are offered routinely even to adults with type 1 diabetes, but funding should be considered in a small number of specified circumstances. Meanwhile, children and young people must either have frequent severe hypoglycaemia, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia associated with adverse consequences, or the inability to recognise or communicate about symptoms of hypoglycaemia in order to be eligible for a CGM at the moment.
The guidelines, which can be difficult for health professionals, adult patients, and parents alike to navigate, are an obstacle to accessing life-changing technologies for people living with diabetes. As such, I hope that the Government will take steps to encourage CCGs to increase the take-up of CGMs—I apologise for all the acronyms—and flash glucose meters, and that eventually work will be undertaken, in conjunction with NICE, to look at increasing and improving access to diabetes technologies at a faster rate than patients currently experience.
The running cost of a CGM is around £3,000 to £4,000 a year, whereas a flash glucose meter costs around £1,300 a year. That represents a significant personal cost to many of those who are unable to access these technologies through their CCG, and who therefore have little choice but to self-fund. Lots of parents do this for their children especially. In considering the financial impact of diabetes, we must recognise that diabetic technologies should not be available only to those who can afford to self-fund. Allowing the continuation of the disparity between people with diabetes who can afford to make use of life-changing technologies and those who cannot undermines the principle of a truly national health service.
It is also important to consider that investment in the new technologies could save the NHS vast amounts in the long term. That is because they can help to avoid severe night-time hypos, and severe hypos cost the NHS £13 million a year. In addition, as I have mentioned, diabetes-related complications account for 80% of the total NHS spend on diabetes, and supporting patients to better manage their condition through access to CGMs and flash glucose meters will inevitably seek to reduce that cost. That is a significant saving, before we even begin considering the impact of hypoglycaemia on the UK economy as a whole.
Finally, during Prime Minister’s questions, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, the Prime Minister stated:
“There are many youngsters out there, from tiny tots to teenagers, living with type 1 diabetes. It is important that we send a message to them that their future is not limited: they can do whatever they want.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 821-22.]
I am sure that all of us in the Chamber today very much welcome her comments. I hope that they represent a forthcoming commitment by the Government to improve access to life-changing technologies for adults and children to reduce any obstacles that they might otherwise face.
I ask the Government to commit to working to improve access to diabetes management education, support, and access to emerging technologies. We must ensure that emerging technologies reach the public in a timely manner, and that innovation, to make them even more user-friendly and to encourage take-up, is also supported and encouraged by the Government.
A national focus on access to diabetes technologies has its roots not only in clinical, but in financial arguments, as well having national support. So far, more than 26,000 people, from every single constituency in the UK, have signed a petition initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland calling for CGMs to be made available as a right on the NHS to adults and children living with type 1 diabetes. Moreover, 25 cross-party colleagues have signed an early-day motion in a similar vein. I extend my support to those cross-party calls to ensure that such technologies become accessible to adults and children living with diabetes—especially type 1—so as, ultimately, to improve the lives of those who need those technologies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for giving us the opportunity to have such an important debate. His timing is impeccable, as always, as I found on the Science and Technology Committee, of which he was such an excellent member—we exist in a mutual admiration society. This debate follows on from world diabetes day last month. I want to add my voice to the tributes already paid to the all-party groups on diabetes and on vascular disease and to Diabetes UK for the work they do on this issue. It is invaluable, as we have heard from the very high quality and personal contributions this afternoon.
As the shadow Minister says, diabetes is one of the biggest health challenges facing this country today. The figures are truly sobering. Almost 3 million people in England are currently diagnosed with diabetes and we estimate that a further 940,000 remain undiagnosed. Furthermore, around 5 million are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. If nothing changes, by 2025 more than 4 million people will have the condition. As the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, type 1 diabetes affects 400,000 people in the UK and its incidence is increasing by about 4% a year. It is not preventable, so the emphasis is on improving the lives of people with type 1 diabetes and helping them to manage their condition.
I absolutely associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister: the message should be that people are able to live full and active lives, and the Government are there to do whatever they can to support them to do so. I shall certainly undertake to study the upcoming report mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and consider its proposals carefully.
Type 2 diabetes is much more common. Diabetes as a whole is a leading cause of preventable sight loss in people of working age and is a major contributor to kidney failure, heart attack and stroke. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, diabetic foot disease, including lower limb amputations and foot ulcers, account for more days in hospital than all other diabetes complications put together. We are determined to change that.
According to Public Health England and Diabetes UK, 5 million people in England are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and one in 10 will develop the disease if current trends continue. Type 2 diabetes is largely preventable and manageable through lifestyle changes, as the shadow Minister has testified—I was very impressed by her testimony today.
There is also a huge financial cost—as well as a personal cost—to diabetes and its complications. It already costs the NHS in England more than £5.6 billion a year, and that continues to rise. In addition, the annual social care costs associated with supporting people with diabetes are estimated to be £1.4 billion. Managing the growing impact of diabetes is one of the major clinical challenges of the 21st century. That is why preventing type 2 diabetes and promoting the best possible care for all people with diabetes is a key priority for me and for the Government.
It will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives to hear that, as the Minister for Public Health and Innovation, I believe he is absolutely correct to highlight the role that modern technologies, properly used, can play in the care of people with diabetes. We are extremely fortunate to have a thriving, world-class life sciences industry in this country—it is one of the jewels in the crown of our industrial sector. That is why we are investing an extra £2 billion a year in research and development by the end of this Parliament to help to put post-Brexit Britain at the cutting edge of science and technology, as the Chancellor announced today.
The development of new, innovative technologies is continuing at pace and is revolutionising health systems throughout the world. However, that will not help if patients do not benefit from it, so we want to make sure that patients here benefit as quickly as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, we can do better. That is exactly why we commissioned the accelerated access review to support the NHS to become a system that embraces innovation and works in collaboration with innovators to get products to patients more quickly. The review was published last month. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will respond as soon as we can.
It is not surprising that we are seeing the emergence of technologies that have real potential to improve the lives of people with diabetes in the context of such a thriving life sciences sector. As many colleagues have mentioned, key to managing diabetes is monitoring and controlling glucose levels. Various technologies are available. Insulin pump technology is prime among these and is recommended by NICE as an option for people with type 1 diabetes. Many people are already benefitting from blood glucose monitoring with testing strips and a machine to read blood glucose levels, as well as continuous glucose monitoring. The shadow Minister went into great detail about how that already provides hundreds of readings a day to provide a clear picture of people’s glucose levels.
People also benefit from flash glucose monitoring, where the glucose concentration and trend is shown when the monitor is waved over the sensor. Other devices are also available; I understand that many people are already finding them useful in reducing hyperglycaemic and hypoglycaemic attacks. In some cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, such devices can offer life-changing support to patients living with diabetes. They can play a particularly valuable role for certain patient groups, including children and teens, when they are properly managed, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)—who is not in his place—said earlier.
Clinical commissioning groups are responsible for commissioning diabetes services. In doing so, they need to ensure that the services they provide are fit for purpose, reflect the needs of their local populations and are based on the available evidence, taking into account national guidelines. In the end, none of the guidelines can supersede the best judgment of clinicians, formed with their patients, about the best treatment option for them. I know that NHS England is actively investigating the potential of technologies for use within the NHS with manufacturers and patient groups to understand and identify areas of need and barriers to adoption so that they can improve access.
Looking to the future, artificial pancreas technology, as was mentioned, continues to be developed. One system has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and a European licence is being pursued. Large randomised clinical studies of similar systems are now beginning, and several are expected to come to market in the next five years. Teams in the UK, including in Cambridge and London, are leading on some of this work, but these technologies need to be used optimally as part of holistic treatment pathways so that we get the best patient outcomes from them. That is exactly what the NHS innovation accelerator aims to deliver.
The NHS innovation accelerator is supposed to realise the commitment in the five-year forward view to create the conditions and cultural change necessary for proven innovations to be adopted faster and more systematically through the NHS for the benefit of patients. This is being delivered in partnership with all 15 academic health science networks. AHSN initiatives are patient-facing. Monster Manor, for example, is a free app launched by the Oxford AHSN—which I mention very selfishly—diabetes clinical network to encourage children with type 1 diabetes to track their blood glucose readings and become more engaged in their diabetes management. By logging readings, players earn rewards that help them to advance through the game.
The Yorkshire and Humber AHSN is implementing a locally developed set of tools to support general practice and community pharmacy in fostering greater self-care and health literacy among patients with diabetes and encourage them to do something to prevent severe hypoglycaemic episodes. A particular benefit of the AHSN network is the best practice sharing system, which is now in place, to ensure that improvements in one area can more quickly spread across the whole country.
Another example of accelerator innovation is the internet of things innovation diabetes test bed, which is funded by the Department. This enables people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to do the right thing at the right time in self-managing their condition. It can be difficult to manage any long-term condition, so help is particularly valuable. People get a real-time view of their own data so they can take prompt action to prevent their condition from getting worse. This also encourages more timely and appropriate interventions from healthcare professionals. It is hoped that using technology in this way will also create genuine partnerships between patients and their healthcare professionals.
Realistically, the only way we are going to make measurable progress in halting the diabetes epidemic is to put strong measures in place to prevent those at risk from developing type 2 diabetes in the first place. Healthier You, the diabetes prevention programme, is the first type 2 diabetes prevention programme of its kind to be delivered at scale nationwide anywhere in the world. By 2020, the programme will be made available to up to 100,000 people at risk of diabetes each year across England. Those referred will get personalised help to reduce their risk, including education on healthier eating and lifestyles, and physical exercise programmes tailored to the individual. Building on that, NHS England is investing an additional £40 million each year to support CCGs in promoting evidence-based interventions to improve the care that all people with diabetes receive. In line with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives made, NHS England is encouraging GPs to refer people who are at high risk of diabetes into the national diabetes prevention programme, although referrals also come through the NHS health check, so there are two routes.
The role of structured education is widely recognised to be hugely important. The Department, NHS England and Diabetes UK are working together to improve the take-up of such education, including through digital and web-based approaches. Furthermore, NHS England is planning to make additional investment from 2017-18 to support the expansion of structured education to help patients to understand their condition better and manage it themselves more successfully.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley made some important points about the interaction of mental health services and diabetes provision. There is already significant activity to tackle the challenges of negative body image, and the Government announced a body image taskforce in 2010. It reports annually and is led by the Government Equalities Office. Simultaneously, in response to the priorities put forward in the five-year forward view on mental health, we are currently significantly improving care pathways for eating disorders. I have not so far investigated the specific challenge of how young diabetic patients interact with that context, but as a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments I undertake to do so.
I hope I have demonstrated not only the Government’s commitment but my personal commitment to harnessing new and innovative technologies as part of our drive to improve outcomes for the millions of people already living with diabetes and the many others at risk of developing the disease, as well as to sending out the clear message that diabetes does not in any way limit the ability to live an active life and to contribute well.
Derek Thomas
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan; I think I have 37 minutes left.
I thank the Minister for the information she has given today. I have learned things, and the challenge now is for us to make sure that patients and clinicians will also know what is available to help them. We want acceleration in technology and the integration of services so that patients can be diagnosed as early as possible, have reliable online information about what is available and how to look after themselves and also get the specialist care they need, as well as access to the most appropriate technology. It seems to me that we are all singing from the same song sheet, and I am encouraged to hear that the Government are doing and will do all they can to support patients.
I appreciate that there have been distractions in the House today, but I think this debate has been a useful exercise; I am sure there will be others in future about how to continue with this important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to diabetes technologies.
Car Parking Charges: Stevenage
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered car parking charges and Stevenage town centre.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful that the Minister is present to respond to this debate, which is important both for my constituents in Stevenage and nationally. It is clear that excessive parking charges have been a major factor in the destruction of many high streets and town centres. They have forced local shoppers away from their much loved local areas towards out-of-town retail parks and supermarkets offering free parking.
The Minister will be aware of the negative impact a poor local authority can have on standards of living. Such an authority can have a chokehold on economic growth, as it holds small local businesses back. Sadly, Stevenage Borough Council is such an authority and has been holding Stevenage back for years. But we are breaking free from the council’s restrictive grip. Stevenage has become the economic engine of Hertfordshire, and Hertfordshire has taken a leading role in the economic recovery.
Stevenage was the first new town in the country. It was established by the Stevenage Development Corporation 70 years ago. It is home to some of the biggest companies in the world and employs nearly 10,000 scientists and technicians. We have more than 4,000 small businesses. Since 2010, unemployment has fallen from 5.8% to 1.6%. I have launched a variety of apprenticeship campaigns. Before 2010, just under 200 apprentices were starting work every year, which was not bad, but not great either. We now have more than 800 apprentices starting real jobs every year in Stevenage, and we are on course for 1,000. That is an absolutely fantastic achievement that is giving young people a real chance at a start in life.
People say, “It’s not rocket science,” but I actually have apprentice rocket scientists, and I have apprentice accountants, too—you name it, we have them. That is because local employers are working with me and the local community to make a difference. We have amazing transport links, as Stevenage is situated on the A1(M) and the east coast main line. In fact, we are only 19 minutes from King’s Cross on the fast trains.
Since 2010, I have secured from the Government more than £300 million of investment in infrastructure. Such massive investment has transformed public services in the area. More than £150 million of that investment has been spent on rebuilding the Lister hospital, which, although it has its challenges, is fast becoming a centre of clinical excellence. We have had a variety of other new NHS investments, including in GP surgeries. Some of our secondary schools have been rebuilt, while others are being modernised. Some primary schools have been rebuilt, and others have been expanded. In total we have 42 primary and nursery schools in Stevenage, and 40 of them are rated as good or outstanding, with the other two closing the gap quickly.
I have secured the money for the widening of the A1(M) between junctions 6 and 8, which was not easy at £8 million a mile. The technical works have started and the Government will deliver on a campaign that has been running for more than 30 years, because we understand how critical great infrastructure is to releasing economic growth.
Hertfordshire is one of the safest places in the country to live, and a third of Stevenage is parks and open spaces. With such great public services, transport connections, new homes being built and more than 400,000 square feet of office space being converted into residential flats because of permitted development rights—all within 15 minutes of the railway station—it is clear why so many people are moving to my constituency. In fact, many Londoners relocate to Stevenage, because they can get to work faster living in Hertfordshire than when they lived in London.
The Minister can see that Stevenage is taking off. We are breaking the grip of Stevenage Borough Council, which is trying to hold us back, and we are moving forward, but we have a huge problem right in the centre of our town. I love Stevenage, but its town centre is not fit for purpose. It needs regenerating and bringing forward into the 21st century, and it needs to reflect the growing aspirations of the people who live there, but do not shop there.
Stevenage Borough Council is addicted to car parking charges and has a monopoly on off-street car parks in the town centre and at the railway station. Let me put that into context: the council takes more than £3.5 million a year in car parking charges, and just over £4 million a year as its share of the council tax. It is a tiny lower tier local authority that provides services for 60,000 electors, making it the smallest local authority in Hertfordshire and one of the smallest in the country.
A third of the council’s budget effectively comes from car parking charges. In Stevenage, we have to pay almost as much in car parking charges as we do in council tax. That is totally unacceptable. I am sure the Minister will agree that councils should not have monopolies on car parks. Stevenage Borough Council should consider divesting itself of such assets, and it should certainly not use excessive parking charges to make up a shortfall in its budget.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and to be able to speak in this debate with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who is my neighbour in Leicestershire. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has many parallels with mine. We have the MIRA business park and we have very low unemployment. I support what he is trying to do with this debate. On Friday, my private Member’s Bill should receive its Second Reading. It has the twin purpose of allowing councils to reduce parking charges without 21 days’ notice, and introducing a proviso that should councils want to increase parking charges, they will have to consult.
Stephen McPartland
That is an excellent intervention. I would be happy to support my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill.
Will the Minister clarify whether a local authority’s revenue surplus from off-street car parking may be used for general purposes, or is it restricted in the same manner as an on-street parking revenue surplus? Will he agree to review off-street parking revenues in areas such as Stevenage, where there is such a distorted market due to the council’s monopoly?
I know that the Department does not collect data on high parking charges centrally, and local authorities are responsible for setting local parking charges, taking account of local circumstances. Nevertheless, the Minister wants local authorities to adopt policies that support local town centres, and the Government have recently consulted on that idea, so will he start collecting the data and analysing the effect of high car parking charges on the viability of the economies of town centres such as Stevenage’s?
The Portas review clearly showed that car parking charges were the biggest barrier to the regeneration of our town centres. A couple of years ago, I launched a campaign to protect local people from Stevenage Borough Council’s car parking rip-off, and received the support of the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles). I believe that, by taking more than £3 million a year in car parking charges, Stevenage Borough Council is preventing the regeneration of Stevenage town centre.
My campaign calls on Stevenage Borough Council to apologise and move forward by introducing three hours’ free parking so that more local people can afford to shop locally. On-street parking is free for three hours in the Stevenage old town, and it is vibrant, with the Department recently commending it for coming in the top five high streets in the country.
There is free parking at the Roaring Meg retail park, where Debenhams is currently building a new store. The company has chosen to build there rather than the town centre. Although I welcome the fact that Debenhams is coming to Stevenage, I wish it would come to the town centre and act as an anchor store to kick-start the regeneration scheme. Local people are rightly concerned that many of the fashion shops in the town centre will relocate once the store opens.
I am campaigning for Stevenage Borough Council to match the three hours of free parking at Roaring Meg and stop killing our town centre by ripping off local people. I have spoken to developers, financiers, chief executives and chairmen of leading retailers, and they all tell me the exact same simple facts of regeneration. We have to increase customer footfall and the dwell time of shoppers before they will come, and the quickest way to do that is with an element of free parking. But Stevenage Borough Council cannot give up its addiction to the £3.5 million it receives in car parking charges, which blocks every regeneration attempt.
Thousands of local people have signed my campaign for three hours’ free parking, because we want to see the town centre regenerated. Stevenage Borough Council has launched several regeneration plans over the past 20 years, but they have all collapsed because of this addiction to car parking charges. To put it into context for the Minister, around 40% of my town centre is car parks.
The latest regeneration plan is painful to read. It is a billion-pound joke on local people. The ridiculous proposal involves moving the existing railway station, relied on by 35,000 commuters a day, and closing Lytton Way, which the council says is redundant, but is actually the busiest dual carriageway in Stevenage, going right through the heart of the town centre. One of the only two custody suites in the whole of Hertfordshire is located off the dual carriageway. The plan also involves demolishing the Gordon Craig theatre and building 1,600 flats on the leisure park to wipe out our community facilities, including the first Cineworld cinema in the UK, which is an 18-screen cinema, with IMAX 3D and 4D. None of this would actually take place in the area that we refer to as the town centre; it would all be adjacent to it.
Stevenage Borough Council has made Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership mislead the Government in its application to the local growth fund and it has also misled the Homes and Communities Agency. I shall explain: Stevenage Borough Council created what it calls a public-private partnership, named Stevenage First, in June 2015 to launch its latest ridiculous regeneration proposals. I opposed the proposals as they are not deliverable and will create massive economic uncertainty in our town and intense disruption for the seven years that the railway station move would take.
Consequently, the only organisations that make up the board of Stevenage First are Hertfordshire County Council, Hertfordshire LEP, Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire chamber of commerce. No private companies will touch Stevenage First, so it is not even a public-private partnership. However, Stevenage Borough Council writes to companies and organisations, including the HCA, asking them to join the board and stating that I am a board member, even though I am not and I actually opposed the creation of Stevenage First. Stevenage Borough Council also states that Network Rail is a board member. I have met the chief executive of Network Rail who explained that Network Rail is not a board member, confirming that in writing to me and the council.
The council and the LEP have stated in their application for Government funding to move our railway station and destroy Stevenage’s economy that Legal & General has committed £250 million of private funding. I have met the chief executive of Legal & General and he has confirmed to me and also put in writing that Legal & General has made no such offer of funding and has no desire to see the train station moved.
This disastrous scheme has also seen the new turnback facility for the Hertford Loop line, which we need at Stevenage station, being delayed, and it is now under threat. I secured the agreement for this facility in the last Parliament, because we need it to benefit from the increased range of services that will be available from 2018, when we will have direct services to Gatwick and Brighton from Stevenage after the new Thameslink works are completed.
I will not bore everyone with the details, but the result of the delay is that Govia, the train operating company, has suggested in its consultation for 2018 that a bus replacement service would be needed until the new station is built. That means that for up to seven years the 1,100 people a day in Stevenage who use the Hertford Loop line would have to get a bus if the disastrous station proposal got the go-ahead. That is totally unacceptable and would mean a reduction rather than an increase in capacity.
I spend my time campaigning for more seats and services on our line, and I have secured massive improvements. This ridiculous regeneration plan is putting them all at risk. If there is any money available for station investment, we should ensure that it is spent only on delivering a new platform five in time for the 2018 timetable.
It is time for radical action and for a new town centre in Stevenage, and the first step has to be introducing three hours of free parking, to help to increase customer footfall and dwell time. I have previously asked the Government to step in and take action. I asked them to establish a new Stevenage development corporation, to regenerate our town centre once and for all. If Stevenage Borough Council is frightened of being side-lined, then it should not have a development corporation. Let us have a development partnership, a super-business improvement district and a whole new model we can invent, which can act as a template for small town centre regeneration schemes. I do not mind—I will work with anyone to deliver for my town of Stevenage.
It is time for radical action and I urge the Minister to help me to create a modern, aspirational and 21st-century town centre in Stevenage. We have a real opportunity and we must take it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing what has been an interesting and informative debate. It has been important to hear his views and how he wants the future of Stevenage to be shaped. It is also good to hear what a passionate and strong voice he is for his constituents.
This debate also gives me an important opportunity to set out the Government’s vision for the future of parking and town centres. Personally, I am passionate about town centres and the role that parking has to play. Town centres are important for our communities and local economies. However, the huge structural shift in retailing, with the rise of online shopping and out-of-town retailing, which my hon. Friend referred to, means that we are at a critical moment for our town centres. I am absolutely dedicated to giving local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and local communities access to the tools they need to transform their local areas and bring their town centres into the 21st century.
High streets and town centres have the potential to aid job creation and nurture small businesses, and parking plays a major role in providing the gateway to them. To date, the Government have taken significant action to support town centres and drive growth. Since 2010, we have helped to create more than 360 town teams and given over £18 million to a number of different towns. That is on top of a range of other steps, including supporting the phenomenally successful Great British High Street awards, which my hon. Friend alluded to, and the Love Your Local Market campaign. We have also introduced a package of important financial reliefs for small businesses, such as the £1.4 billion package of support for small businesses, which ended this year. In addition, we are bringing forward a significant £6.7 billion package of business rate relief, which will start next April and which will benefit many businesses on our high streets and in our town centres.
The best retailers, the best high streets and the best town centres are already adapting to change. They are becoming places where people go for a day or night out, to do some shopping—but also to have something to eat or go to the cinema—and to enjoy their leisure time. Achieving such adaptation is not always easy in many places, as I am sure hon. Members will know. The Government are absolutely committed to helping communities to adapt, but we cannot and should not bail out or prop up ailing businesses. We believe that plans and ideas for town centres must come from local areas themselves. It is for councils, businesses and communities in local areas, with the input of excellent Members of Parliament, to decide what they want high streets and town centres to look like and what they want their vision for the future to be.
The Government must support local people, building skills and spreading best practice, while doing everything we can at a national level to support high street growth. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—who has taken on the role of Minister with responsibility for high streets—is taking forward a strand of work through the Future High Streets Forum. He is working with many people from the industry on how the Government can make it easier for local areas, facilitating them in bringing our high streets up to the standard expected in the 21st century, and how a high street or town centre can be restructured to reflect that.
Let me now turn to car parking. This Government have introduced reforms to make car parking easier, allowing high streets to adapt to the needs of their communities. The previous Conservative-led coalition Government introduced reforms to make it mandatory for local authorities to give 10-minute grace periods for all on-street parking bays and all off-street car parks. This gives town centre customers greater flexibility and allows them to complete their business in the town centre without having to worry about whether they are running over their parking time by a few minutes.
The Government have also been concerned about how councils have used CCTV camera cars, which were being used purely as revenue-generating tools. That is why, in addition to grace periods, we banned local authorities from sending car parking tickets through the post. That means that individuals have a degree of certainty, because if they get a ticket now, they know that it will be there when they get back to their car. They will not receive it through the post a number of weeks later, when they may not recall that particular journey, but can instead corroborate the information given by a parking ticket.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage that we are now looking at further reforms to the local government transparency code, which picks up on his point about how car parking revenue is used. Following the recent consultation, we intend to amend the code so that motorists can see at first hand a complete breakdown of the parking charges their councils impose and how much money the charges raise. Since 2014, councils have been required to be more transparent about how much money they raise through parking charges and penalties. Our proposals therefore go even further, enabling drivers to see far more information about the levels of fines imposed, how many were paid and how many were cancelled.
Let me take this opportunity to commend the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). The Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill offers an excellent opportunity for a small but sensible reform to local authority car parks. The Bill would give the Government powers to scrap the bureaucratic requirements on local authorities if they wish to lower their car parking charges. That is extremely important, because it offers a real opportunity for councils to be at the forefront, supporting their high streets. For example, they can respond to the opportunity of a town centre festival or event by quickly and flexibly reducing car parking charges. Where areas can do that for specific events, it makes a huge difference. It often attracts a lot of people into the town centre who may live in the area but who do not necessarily visit that town. They can get a feel for the town centre, and often it reminds them what is there and what they can do while they visit. That is extremely important. It would certainly make it easier for Stevenage Borough Council to implement the policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage sensibly advocates.
The Bill would also provide for a consultation requirement if councils wished to increase the charges. Councils often get to the budget-setting process in the year and decide that they want to fill a hole in the revenue budget. Car parking charges are often seen as an easy fix. It is important for councils to have to engage with their local populations and consult to ensure that they are doing the right thing in taking that approach. Charging levels are often a significant concern to town centre businesses, and we think it is fit and proper that councils listen to those businesses before they set their charges. The Bill is on Second Reading on Friday, and I look forward to colleagues in the House supporting it wholeheartedly.
Turning to other matters, I note that my hon. Friend has been an active supporter and campaigner for three hours of free parking in Stevenage. I take this opportunity to say that I fully support his campaign. Many areas across the country have taken that approach, and it has made a significant and positive difference to the number of people coming into those areas. For example, North Lincolnshire Council has taken the commendable step of offering free parking to visitors to Brigg, Ashby and Scunthorpe to encourage more use of those town centres. The scheme offers one free ticket a day for each vehicle per visit, per site. In Northumberland, the council offers a disk-based scheme. It is good to see my hon. Friend from Northumberland, the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). She will know that that scheme allows motorists to park at a range of towns across Northumberland.
I encourage other councils to take up that good practice. Where councils do not think about parking charges, it has negative consequences. In my constituency, Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council regrettably took the step of increasing car parking charges in April, and it has already found that that has reduced the car park income to the council by £200,000. That shows what a negative approach that is and the damaging effect that putting up car parking charges can have on a town centre.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to helping our high streets to adapt to the changing needs of communities and making them fit for the 21st century, but we need to be clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Every town is different, but parking has a key role to play in encouraging people to use our town centres. Everyone needs to play their part, with local economic partnerships, local authorities, businesses, communities and local Members of Parliament coming together. It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage make that wide offer to his local area—to say, “Let’s work together to make things happen in Stevenage.” That is absolutely right. Local areas must come together to work on behalf of local businesses, bring local people into our town centres and deliver a package that they can be proud of. As we are seeing, many people are indeed proud of their town centres, because across the country more than 400,000 people have voted for their favourite high street in our Great British high street competition.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport: North-east
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport in the North East.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate on such an important issue for many of my constituents. This is by no means the first time that I have spoken in this House about transport in the north-east, and I start by reiterating what I said on those occasions about the region’s huge economic potential. Nissan’s recent decision to build two new models at its Sunderland plant was a resounding vote of confidence in the workforce and in the north-east economy and a demonstration of what can be achieved when Government and business work together to maximise what the region has to offer.
As the only English region consistently to maintain a balance of trade surplus over the past decade, the north-east is clearly doing something right in developing export opportunities by land, air and sea. One of the most effective ways that Government can help to support those efforts and drive economic growth is through greater investment in transport infrastructure. After all, a 2014 research paper commissioned by the Department for Transport described transport as an
“essential input to income generation”
that has
“positive impacts on a wide range of economic variables including city size and employment.”
Creating better transport connections between the north’s economic centres is also meant to be one of the central planks of the Government’s so-called northern powerhouse scheme. Despite the soaring rhetoric of the northern powerhouse initiative, the level of public spending allocated to the north-east remains very low compared with almost every other region in the country. Government figures show that expenditure has declined by almost 20% over the decade, with the result that the north-east accounted for only 2.8% of overall UK spend on transport last year.
Although other northern regions have also suffered from a decline in central funding in recent years, the amount spent on transport in the north-east last year was by far the lowest of the English regions, and second only to Northern Ireland across the UK. The difference between the north-east and London is especially stark. At £300 a head of population, expenditure in the north-east is far below the London spend of £1,900 a head. Some £573 million was spent across the whole north-east on transport last year, but £27 billion to £32 billion has been earmarked for Crossrail 2 alone.
Given the substantial levels of public investment in transport in the capital, it is hardly a surprise that one in four Londoners do not own a car. Few realise that the north-east has the second lowest rate of car ownership in the country after London, with one in three people entirely reliant on public transport to get around.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I know she is a passionate champion of bus services. Does she realise that bus passenger numbers have fallen by 57.7% in the north-east since deregulation in the 1980s—the highest of any region? Does she think that is a sign of success, or is it actually a recognition of the failure to have a co-ordinated transport policy?
Bridget Phillipson
I feel that deregulation has been an unmitigated disaster for regions such as the north-east, where we have had a knock-on effect on fares, falling bus patronage and local communities often entirely cut off from bus services. I know that my hon. Friend faces similar problems in his community in Hartlepool to those I face in mine.
On that point, the people in my constituency are entirely dependent on bus services. There is no other option. It is therefore imperative that the comparatively small amount of money allocated to the north-east for transport is spent on ensuring that local public transport services meet the needs of local people and businesses. Unfortunately, expenditure on local public transport in the north-east has dropped by more than 45% over the last five years, which is by far the biggest decrease in spending on any mode of transport in the region.
I want to take the opportunity to again raise with the Minister my long-standing concerns about the state of north-east local bus services. Over the past six years, thousands of local people have contacted me to express their deep dissatisfaction about the cost of fares and the level of service being provided by private bus companies. That is why I vocally supported efforts by Nexus and the North East combined authority to use existing legislation to re-regulate local bus services, through the introduction of a London-style quality contract scheme in Tyne and Wear. It would have integrated fares and routes and ensured that taxpayer subsidies were used to improve services instead of to increase operating profits. I was therefore sorely disappointed with the quality contract scheme board decision a year ago to reject the proposals, even though it acknowledged that the scheme would offer local people a transport system unrivalled outside London. I still find it incredible that the board believed operators should be compensated for the future loss of potential profits. The people of the north-east should not have to compensate bus operators for what is taken for granted in London.
One year on, north-east passengers are no closer to getting the bus service they deserve. Nexus was clear during the QCS process that if the scheme was not implemented, bus cuts were inevitable, fares would increase and ridership would go down. That scenario is playing out. Annual bus statistics show that bus patronage has decreased by 2.7% again in Tyne and Wear and given the frequency with which operators chop and change services and raise fares, that is hardly a surprise. While north-east bus passengers continue to suffer from the absence of a fully integrated network, bus operators in the region continue to make large profits. In fact, in some cases the profits made by commercial bus operators are even being used to prop up loss-making rail franchises, as David Brown, chief executive officer of the Go-Ahead Group recently admitted. We cannot go on like this.
The QCS board decision last November may have blocked efforts to introduce franchising schemes under existing legislation, but there was much hope that the Bus Services Bill would give us the power to implement the change we so desperately need. Unfortunately, despite sensible amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords on bus franchising schemes, the Government seem determined to ensure those powers will only be available automatically to mayoral combined authorities. It seems as if the region will once again be denied the opportunity to improve services for passengers. The current deregulated system has not only failed to prevent a decline in bus patronage—it has exacerbated it. I ask the Minister to think carefully on the amendments and to give the north-east the powers it needs to implement the urgent, radical change needed to arrest and reverse that decline.
Buses are of course not the only means by which people travel across the north-east, although they are the only mode of public transport for many of my constituents, which is one of the main reasons for the poor connectivity between semi-urban and rural constituencies such as mine and the urban centres they surround. If the Government really want to create better transport links between economic centres in the north, they must provide Nexus with the long-term funding necessary for essential infrastructure works to refresh and expand the metro. With 60 stations, around 40 million passenger trips per year and trains running up to 19 hours a day, the metro has been serving the needs of north-east residents for more than 40 years.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I am very interested in that point about how busy the metro is. Is my hon. Friend aware that Network Rail maintains the principal part of the rail tracks that the metro runs on, as well as the rest of the rail tracks in the north-east? Does she agree that we should press the Minister to assure us that Network Rail will not be privatised again, as has been widely reported in the national newspapers? It was brought into public hands because of a poor safety record in the private sector. We need an assurance on that today, bearing in mind how dependent we are in the north-east on the railways and the metro.
Bridget Phillipson
I am sure the Minister will want to respond to that point; I am not sure that my hon. Friend will get that assurance, but he has made his point clearly.
The metro, a system that was once the envy of the country, is now in need of major renewal and investment. The metro reinvigoration programme, published by Nexus in July this year, provided a clear strategy for the creation of a joined-up rail and metro network that will make use of the disused former passenger and freight routes that criss-cross the north east, such as the Leamside line. Those plans would provide people in my constituency, as well as those living in Washington, Seaham, west Newcastle, Gateshead, Team valley and elsewhere, with the means to travel much more easily and efficiently across the region.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does she agree that the £550 million required to replace the current metro fleet, which would stop the breakdowns and the unreliability that compounds the problem, is absolutely essential for sustaining where we are at the moment, never mind for moving forward to the phase 3 that she is talking about, and that the Government should look seriously at that?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister should look carefully at the business case being put forward and make sure it is given full and proper consideration.
The benefits for economic regeneration arising from the expansion and extension of the metro are obvious. One example would be connecting Sunderland city centre to Doxford park via the former Hetton colliery railway. That would provide access to Doxford international business park, which is currently very poorly served by local bus services. Extending metro-style services to Sunderland’s biggest business park can only help attract new businesses, investors and skilled staff to the constituency and the wider region.
It is no secret that there have been major issues around the metro’s reliability and performance in recent months. If passengers cannot rely on the metro to get them to where they need to be on time, they will stop using it—it is as simple as that. I commend the progress that Nexus has made in carrying out essential renewals over the past six years in the face of budget cuts, but one of the main reasons many people are experiencing regular delays and cancellations on the metro is the deteriorating state of its rolling stock, much of which dates back to the 1970s and has long since passed the end of its design life. That is why I support proposals by Nexus to introduce a new fleet in 2021, which would also make the expansion of metro services much more likely.
I urge the Minister and the Department to make a decision about Government investment for that project as soon as possible so that Nexus can meet the target. The completion of the metro reinvigoration programme is the least that people across the north-east without access to integrated transport links deserve. Will the Minister commit to considering carefully the strong cost-benefit ratio of those proposals and the major economic benefits for the region that they will bring? Can he give an indication as to when we can expect a Government decision? I urge him to make it an early one.
Greater investment in local public transport in the north-east should not come at the cost of much-needed regional and local road improvement projects. The new Wear crossing, which is part of Sunderland City Council’s strategic plan to create a continuous dual carriageway between the port of Sunderland, the city centre and the A19, will not only help reduce congestion but bring sustained economic regeneration and transport benefits to the city and the wider region. However, the cancellation of the central route scheme in 2011 in my constituency remains a source of deep disappointment. There are major house building projects under way, but we lack the necessary transport infrastructure. Large numbers of vehicles on local roads are causing major congestion and problems for residents, as well as pushing up the logistical costs of doing business.
The purpose of this debate is not to ask for special treatment for our region. All we ask for is a fair funding deal that reflects the unique needs of the north-east and addresses the inequality in Whitehall’s transport spending. Although the transport authority and local councils are doing their best in difficult circumstances, they clearly need more financial help and support from central Government. Big ticket projects such as HS2 demonstrate that significant money is available.
I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully upon the issues that I have addressed and make the case for greater investment in the north-east to the Secretary of State. Warm words and platitudes will not cut it any longer. If the Government are as serious about rebalancing the UK economy away from London as the Chancellor claimed in today’s autumn statement, Ministers need to act now.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) for giving me the opportunity to talk about a different aspect of transport investment in the north-east—that of mostly rural Northumberland.
I thank the Minister for the work that his exceptional team from Highways England is doing. It is rolling out £300 million-worth of investment in the first stages of dualling the remaining part of the A1, which has been untouched by Governments of every colour for many decades. It is very exciting work. I was with the team on Saturday to see the plans for the detailed work that is going on in that rural territory—the farms there have not had a change to their transportation network for so long. I commend the Minister and the team, which is putting a huge amount of work into local communication so it understands how best to create a modern, 21st-century dualled road through Northumberland. It will ensure that livestock can cross that bigger, busier road and that it does not cut through the middle of farms inappropriately. It is exciting to see that activity going on. Doom-mongers in my constituency still say to me, “It’ll never happen in my lifetime,” so it is exciting to be able to direct them to the maps and show them the farms that will see that investment.
We are doing only about a third of what remains of the last stretch of the A1, which, as its name suggests, should be the first road all the way through to Scotland. As the economic case becomes clearer, we will continue to press for dualling to ensure that people are able to drive from London to Edinburgh, through the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr), on a modern, dualled and, in large part, four-lane motorway—although not in Northumberland.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South talked about having an integrated transport system. It is important to understand that we all have to have cars in rural Northumberland because the bus networks are almost invisible, except for those between one or two of the more major towns. That is a real challenge for families, which often need two cars if two members of the family work in different parts of the county or if one commutes to Newcastle or up to Edinburgh.
We want investment in the train network to continue to grow. The train networks in the north-east are pretty much as good as they get. I think all of us who use them weekly are reassured that we get to and from Newcastle and Berwick, and down to London, in a timely fashion, but it is difficult for my constituents. We are trying to develop a better conversation with the Department for Transport about how we can extend the platform at Belford railway station—it is in the middle of my constituency, which is nearly 70 miles long—so trains can stop there. That would open up opportunities for house building in that part of my constituency and help communities to grow. It would also ensure that more people get on to trains and are not stuck in the commuting networks, clogging up the city centres, which Opposition Members are here to stand up for and defend.
Those are the points that I want to put into the mix. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to talk about the Northumbrian model, which is different from the city models. After so many decades, the Department for Transport must continue to remember that rural Northumberland is a key development opportunity. We have an enterprise zone in Berwick and a growing aeronautical sector in Amble, and we want to ensure that the transport links work so we can continue to grow and invest for the future.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving after the start of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson).
Chi Onwurah
Thank you, Sir Edward.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a subject that is so important to all our constituencies. Transport in the north-east is a critical part of our infrastructure. My time is short, so I want to make four points about roads, rail, buses and industrial strategy.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) said that everyone has to have a car in rural Northumberland, but I know constituents of hers who do not have one. The bottom line of a transport strategy should be to have a public transport system that enables ordinary working people to go to work, universities and schools without having a car. The fact that a Member of Parliament who represents Northumberland believes that her constituents have to have a car is significant. It is true that the bus services in Northumberland are often very poor—I have experienced them—but I hope the Minister will commit to delivering transport infrastructure in the north-east that enables my constituents to go about their normal work and leisure business without having a car.
I listened closely to today’s autumn statement, and I did not hear the looked-for and somewhat trailed investment in transport infrastructure. My understanding is that the dualling of the A69 has been replaced by dualling of the A66. If that proves to be the case, I would like the Minister to explain why we cannot have the investment across the north that we need to ensure we have proper transport links, and why investment in our road infrastructure is piecemeal and on such a limited scale.
Mr Iain Wright
On the subject of transport capital investment and today’s autumn statement, if the Government are keen on rebalancing the economy so that it works for everyone, why is the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford growth corridor worthy of a designated budget line in the autumn statement when there is nothing in there for the north-east?
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, for making such an important point, which I will come on to properly later. I agree wholeheartedly with the implication of his comments. The economic contribution of effective transport infrastructure for the north-east is not recognised in the same way as it is recognised in London and other areas of the south. That absolutely has to change if we are to have any hope of rebalancing our economy and making it more resilient and distributive across the country.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend set out what she will speak about, but airport passenger duty is also important to the economics of the north-east. Our airports play an equally valid and massive role in helping our economy. We heard nothing today about what will happen with regard to Scotland, but it will be detrimental to our north-east airport if the Scottish Government reduce APD.
Chi Onwurah
Given the interest in and strategic importance of transport, I will focus on the issues I set out, but my hon. Friend makes a critically important point. Newcastle airport is a vital part of our economic infrastructure. Naturally, it competes with airports in Scotland. The lack of a decision today—I am not sure whether it has been kicked into the long grass or into orbit—is detrimental to economic certainty at a time of great uncertainty for many other aspects of our economic future.
Let me talk briefly about rail and the metro. I was nine or 10 when the metro came into being. It was a fantastic, highly advanced network that was ahead of its time—I think it was the first network in Europe or the world to be accessible to disabled people—but 40 years later we are using exactly the same rolling stock. Is that believable? Hitachi recently told me that it can deliver trains that would provide what we have been talking about—an extended light rail and metro service across a greater part of Tyne and Wear and the north-east. I hope the Minister will commit to that investment, because we need transport infrastructure and a metro without delays to support the kind of economy we want.
Most of Newcastle Central’s transport is about buses. We have a number of metro stops, but for most of the west of my constituency and parts of the north it is about buses. The failure of bus deregulation in Tyne and Wear has been so patently obvious for so many decades that it beggars belief that we are still debating it today. Outside my constituency office near Central station in Newcastle two No. 1 buses leave in totally different directions, one going north, one south—they both have the same number, because obviously that puts them at the head of some queue. It is totally incomprehensible to those who have lived in the city for many years, never mind visitors.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South discussed, we should not still be debating the lack of integrated bus transport in 2016, when we have seen the success of, for example, the Oyster card and the integrated system in London. I really cannot believe that the Minister will stand up to say that Tyne and Wear and my constituents do not deserve some control over a bus system that is so important to them simply because of the lack of a mayor.
Why is this all so important? As my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Houghton and Sunderland South said, transport is important because it is part of our economic infrastructure and the north-east having critical mass.
Julie Elliott
On economic infrastructure, does my hon. Friend agree that given the recent enormous investment in Newcastle Central station, investment in Sunderland station—which is just as large a city—needs to be addressed by Network Rail? The station does not even have a toilet for public use, never mind the rest of the upgrading. Influence from the Government needs to be exerted, because the local authorities and Nexus for the combined authority have put aside a significant amount of money for their part in any investment, but it is up to Network Rail, which is simply not doing anything at the moment. Urgent investment is needed to upgrade the facilities for what is a very large city.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which gives me the opportunity to support investment in Sunderland’s infrastructure—[Interruption.] I know I am going into controversial territory, but I shall plough ahead regardless. As she mentioned, investment has gone into Newcastle Central station and, although the work was painful and disruptive, we now have a fantastic gateway to the city, as well as much improved facilities. Sunderland was equally part of the great industrial revolution and the investment in and birth of the railways. For its history, as well as for its present and future economy, it merits the facilities of a great industrial and manufacturing city.
All this is so important because, as a region, we need critical mass if we are to compete effectively nationally and internationally. We need people to be able to travel to work in less time, so that we can benefit across the region from skills in Sunderland, Newcastle or Durham. We are a distributed region, with a relatively low population by comparison with other regions around the country, so an integrated and effective transport system is even more necessary for us. The talents of everyone and all our businesses and working people could then be shared throughout the region. If the Minister cannot commit to the sort of investment that we have outlined, all the talk—of a northern powerhouse spreading beyond Manchester, of rebalancing the economy to support the regions and of delivering some type of certainty post-Brexit to enable business investment in our region—will be as nothing against the lack of any action.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on securing the debate.
My constituency, like that of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), is rural, although it is not quite as large as hers. She made an interesting point, because in parts of my constituency, too, without access to a car people cannot even get to the public transport system. Many of my constituents travel out of North Durham—as hers do from her constituency—to work in Teesside, Tyneside or Wearside. The important thing, therefore, is to have good transport links to those jobs that exist along the A1 corridor and in areas in the north-east.
Is the answer a metro for my constituency? No, it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South talked about quality contracts, but she knows that I disagree with her about that. A quality contract would have done nothing for North Durham or, I hasten to add, for the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, because the Tyne and Wear councils would have got control over buses in my constituency. What saddens me a little is that the councils of the north-east, having lost that case—anyone who looked at the finances knew it was going to be lost, right from the beginning—seemed then to park the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) spoke about Oyster cards and smart ticketing. It is vital that the combined authority and the councils sit down with the bus operators to consider how to introduce things such as shared ticketing and Oyster-style arrangements. Bus companies tell me that they are willing to speak about the situation but that they are not getting a great deal of traction from councils.
We will do the travelling public of the north-east a great disservice if we simply wait for the national Government to come up with something or think that some future regulation will be the answer. The combined purchasing power of north-east councils is strong, given what they put into security services, for example. Leadership is needed, rather than thinking that in future we will somehow get a quality contract mark 2, as though that were the only game in town. I do not think it is.
There are opportunities to make a real difference, such as being able to change tickets between different operators, a smart-ticketing process like an Oyster card, or some agreement on children and young people’s fares, which I know that the bus companies are prepared to look at. Is that partly down to the Government? Yes, but some things are in our hands, and combined authorities and council leaders could act. I press them to start negotiations now to see what can be done, at least in the short term.
We have no large employers in my constituency, which is a former coal-mining area, and many people move out to work around the region. The other main network for my constituents, apart from the buses, is the railway and Chester-le-Street station. It is 10 minutes from that station to Central station in Newcastle. However, trying to get any investment, not only in upgrading the station but by ensuring that the operators stop more regularly and at times when people actually want to travel, is very difficult.
That could be dealt with straightaway by ensuring more stopping services and hourly services not only during the day—that is what we have at times; at other times they are half hourly—but at peak times, to ensure that we have regular stopping services at Chester-le-Street. That would avoid many people having to use their cars to travel into Tyneside, as they do at the moment.
Increasingly, my constituents complain about the poor service that they get from the operators, whether that involves trains being late, trains not turning up or, when they do turn up, trains being frequently very overcrowded. People sometimes do not even have the opportunity to stand for 10 minutes, because there is not enough room for them to get on at the station in Chester-le-Street in order to go to Newcastle Central.
I ask the Minister to look at the situation. The formidable Alex Nelson, the stationmaster at Chester-le-Street, always argues very strongly when it comes to refranchising for more trains to stop, but there seems to be a blind spot on the part of the operators and the people who draw up the timetables. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about extending the metro, but I am sorry; I do not think that is the answer, certainly in parts of my constituency and in Berwick and other places. We need investment in rail—whether it be the Blyth-to-Tyneside route, the Leamside line or others—to increase capacity on the east coast main line, but I fear that over the next 20 to 30 years, most of the money will be sucked into the vanity project that is High Speed 2 and High Speed 3.
Some people in the region, including the chamber of commerce, try to lecture us about how important that project is to the north-east, but I do not think it is. It will be a drain on investment—investment that could go into rail projects in the north-east. It is not even a matter of jam tomorrow; it is a matter of the ingredients and possibly the recipe for creating jam. It will have a detrimental effect on some of the small changes that could be made to the north-east rail network that would make a huge difference to connectivity. The one thing that always gets me is how long it takes to travel from Tyneside to Teesside on a track that with some investment could be radically improved. I do not see that happening in the next few years, because, like I say, most of the rail investment in this country will be sucked into HS2 and HS3, which will not benefit my constituents or many other north-east constituents.
We need to put forward doable plans, but we should not think that everything is in the hands of central Government. On buses, there are certainly things that could be done now. The answer to getting people in the north-east out of their cars and on to public transport is not necessarily just to upgrade more roads. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has campaigned for many years for the dualling of the A1, but that will not directly improve connectivity in the north-east or the region’s economy. Although that would be a good feather in her cap, it is certainly not a priority when it comes to the sea change in connectivity that we need to ensure happens in what, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, is quite a small region. People in the north-east increasingly do not live near their jobs but have to travel around the region, and it is difficult for people without direct access to public transport to get to those jobs.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am on the other side of the argument. Re-regulation of buses is acutely needed, particularly in my constituency and especially in the rural parts of east Cleveland. My main concern is the growth in the use of taxis. I am not at all against hire cabs, but there is encroaching monopolisation in the industry. An aspect of transport that is not talked about is the ever-increasing employment of people in the industry, which is highly unregulated and does not best serve my constituents. One Middlesbrough company with a dubious background is encroaching into Redcar and Cleveland. My main concern is that the lack of regulation of rail and particularly local buses, where that problem is acute, is causing ever-growing demand for taxi services, particularly among disabled users.
Mr Jones
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the quality contract was put up as the only game in town for the north-east bus network. I am sorry, but it never was. Proper regulation is important, but the way that it was done meant that it never stacked up financially. It would have meant that my constituency was more poorly served; for example, Durham taxpayers would have subsidised the Tyne and Wear metro system.
I hear what my hon. Friend says about taxis. I have scars on my back from my time in charge of taxi licensing at Newcastle City Council. May I give him some advice? If the political will is there, the regulation is there to be used; it is a matter of how it is used locally. I accept that that is not easy, because taxi drivers are a vocal section of the local electorate, but we made some major changes when I was in charge of taxi licensing in Newcastle. The regulations are there; it is a matter of how they are used.
Was there anything for the north-east in today’s autumn statement? No, there was not. There is a reason for that: the only bits of the north-east that were ever going to get anything under this Government or the previous Government were those with Conservative Members of Parliament. It is not surprising, for example, that money has gone into the A66 and the A1. Those Governments have made pork barrel politics a new art form. It is sad that people in the north-east are being penalised by the Government and denied any major structural investment just because they do not vote Conservative.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
On that bombshell—be careful not to encourage them to do so. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. You have obviously been a naughty boy; you have been sent here many times recently, by the looks of it. [Interruption.] We can see the connotations the Tories take from the phrase “naughty boy”—I don’t know.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on securing this debate and her colleagues from the north-east on turning up in numbers to support her. They are clearly all concerned and passionate about the issue, and she gave an excellent introduction, which is so important in Westminster Hall debates. Her plea for the north-east to be given the powers that it requires to meet the challenges that she articulated so well cannot have failed to be heard.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) also did well. I see that she now has a friend from the other side of the country, the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), so she does not feel quite so isolated. She tried hard and succeeded in making a contribution that was positive about what has been done and at the same time pleaded for much more. I can tell hon. Members that she clearly backs the dualling of the A1, because she gave me a sticker and encouraged me to put it on my car.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) makes an excellent contribution to any debate, although I will now be concerned every time I see a No. 1 bus—is it the correct one? Going by his detailed contribution, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is quite clearly an expert on buses. He sparked some interesting thought processes about HS2, and I will deal briefly with the challenge of what exactly to spend our money on.
I am struck that the imbalances between Scotland and England that my party is somewhat guilty of always complaining about also apply very much to the regions of England. Those imbalances, and in particular the London effect, make me question why new infrastructure such as HS2 needed to start in London and could not have started in—
Tom Blenkinsop
As a result of the Chancellor’s announcement today, Scotland will apparently receive an extra £800 million. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that authorities in the north-east should be included in the Barnett formula and get an equivalent sum, which we could use for transport funding?
Calum Kerr
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I have not given any thought to how money should be allocated. I do not like the phraseology that he uses, but he certainly puts forward an interesting idea. How do we rebalance the economy across England and across the UK? Devolution of power, including spending power, is an important aspect that needs to be considered. As I was saying, if HS2 is indeed so important, why could it not have started in the north of the country? Why could it not be part of redressing the balance between north and south instead of being done in a kind of hub-and-spoke way that reinforces the idea that it is all about London?
I was told that this room would be full of northerners. I do not know whether this makes any difference, but they are all southerners to me. That probably feels like an insult; I assure them that I do not intend it as one. Let me make a couple of points. First, why I am here to sum up, apart from the fact that the third party is asked to sum up in all debates? The reason is, despite being the spokesperson on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and on digital, I am from across the border. Interesting interventions were made about how we in the south of Scotland work with the north of England. The more we can collaborate and work together, have a collective voice and look at ways in which we can become more connected, the more we can collectively redress the pull of the south to which I referred.
I will touch on an example that may appeal to the hon. Member for North Durham, which is to reference the longest piece of domestic railway to be constructed in Britain for more than 100 years: the Borders railway from Edinburgh down to Galashiels. It cost £353 million, it was delivered on time and on budget and it is smashing all predictions on passenger numbers. It was predicted to carry 650,000 passengers a year and the figure is now well beyond a million—it hit those passenger targets within six months. I give that as an example not necessarily of an alternative to high-speed rail but of the kind of projects we should consider.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is a good example of the sort of project that could deliver for the north-east, not to compete with high-speed rail but to bring rail back to communities in rural Northumberland and parts of County Durham, which would be beneficial to local people.
Calum Kerr
I 100% agree. With the fixation on high-speed rail, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the danger is that that sucks up too much money and prevents other projects that could deliver greater economic benefit while attacking some of the geographic challenges that hon. Members have mentioned. The Chancellor in his autumn statement today was keen not to mention too many individual projects. Bizarrely, he decided to talk about one country house refurbishment, although it seemed to me that that was more about scoring a narrow political point against the Labour party than anything else, but such is life.
I appreciate that I am going somewhat off-piste, so if the Minister wishes to bat this back to me I will understand, but is there any mention in the autumn statement or elsewhere on what the Government’s position is on extending the Borders railway through to the constituency of the hon. Member for Carlisle? The Scottish Government have a multi-modal study looking at transport across the Scottish borders and a key ingredient in that is extending the Borders railway service from Galashiels to Hawick and through to Newcastleton and Carlisle, which would create an extra link. That is the kind of project that we should be looking at. That is not necessarily to the exclusion of high-speed rail, but I know which project I would pick if I had to pick between the two. If the Minister could give me any kind of response on that, I would be grateful.
My final point is on pathways. The east coast main line remains an important line for us. The Scottish Government are committed to new stations at East Linton and Reston and a new service with new trains. My concern is that sometimes again we fixate on services to London—Edinburgh to London—which exclude local services, and that means that main lines become less viable. At the moment we are looking at a two-hour service, and once things are made irregular their viability and usefulness diminishes. The Government have a key role to play too in looking at all pathways and the balance between national services serving major cities and local services. I close by congratulating the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South again on securing the debate.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on securing the debate on an important subject for her and her constituents. We have had many good contributions from my hon. Friends, with substantial speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) and a good speech from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). We had good interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). Given the lack of time, I will try to be as brief as possible.
As others have pointed out, transport in the north-east has suffered from consistent underfunding from the Government. Figures from the Department for Transport show that since 2010 the north-east has received the lowest level of public spending on transport compared with any other region in England. As a consequence of that underfunding, bus patronage in the north-east has declined faster since 1986 than in any other region. It has fallen by more than a half, and is now about 50% lower than before deregulation, declining from 426 million bus passenger journeys in 1985 to just 180 million last year. That deregulation, far from increasing competition and improving services for consumers as the Conservative Government at the time promised, has created damaging bus market monopolies. In fact, recent statistics published by the Department show that in Tyne and Wear just two operators—Stagecoach and Go North East—accounted for 87% of market share. Arriva had a market share of more than 97% in Darlington and more than 91% in Redcar and Cleveland, while Stagecoach has 91% in Hartlepool. Monopolies mean that passengers lack alternatives and have to put up with fares rising faster than wages, while we also see allegedly unprofitable routes consistently being axed.
It does not have to be like that. While in Government, Labour introduced legislation to enable local authorities to re-regulate the bus market in their areas. The Transport Act 2000 introduced quality contract schemes and in 2008 there was an attempt to simplify that process, although it is fair to say that we all now recognise that that legislation was overcomplicated.
As we have heard, the North East combined authority came closest to implementing a quality contract scheme, but that fell at the last hurdle just over a year ago. One of my first trips as a member of the shadow Transport team was to Newcastle to meet key members of that team. I pay tribute in particular to Tobyn Hughes, the managing director of Nexus, and the team who tried so hard, and I remember their account of why they did. They gave an account of a local travel system that had been integrated, as hon. Members have explained, and that was one of the most effective public transport systems in the country—it is still fondly remembered—with the metro opening in 1980, providing a seamless integrated link, and one ticket taking people across the city on bus, metro or ferry. Of course, back then we had passengers and citizens, not customers and commodities.
Despite that, the metro is still the busiest light-rail system outside London and the backbone of the transport system, with the public authority specifying fares and frequencies, as we would like to see for buses. However, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, it certainly needs overhauling. We will support Nexus in that process. It is extraordinary that if a passenger crosses the river and boards a bus, they now need to buy another ticket. Unsurprisingly, the result of all that fragmentation is that despite support from the local authorities—dipping into reserves to try to help—bus patronage is still falling, and the familiar cycle of declining services and cuts to services locks in future decline. The system simply is not working.
That is why we strongly supported Tobyn and his team in their Herculean effort, and we were deeply disappointed by the rejection of their proposal by the board. In fact, we were astonished by the board’s implication that bus operators ought to be compensated by local authorities for financial losses they might incur. We were more than astonished by some of the comments from some of the bus companies.
We hope that the situation is calmer now, and it was a welcome surprise when the Government followed Labour’s lead, recognised the shortcomings of the current arrangements and introduced the Bus Services Bill, which has its Third Reading in the other place today. The Opposition want a constructive relationship with all bus operators, large and small. However, we worry that there is a danger that the Bill will have insufficient impact in the north-east because of the linkage to the demand for a combined authority and a mayor. Of course, discussions are going on in that part of the world, but it appears that with a devolution deal “off the table”—in the Government’s words—local people are to be denied the services they should be entitled to. We worry about the future of bus services, but there is a solution and we hope that the Minister will give some thought to making sure that it is available to those people.
I will turn briefly to roads and finally to rail, where we also feel the Government are also in danger of breaking their commitments. We recognise how important the “laddering” is—the road connectivity between the parallel north-south highways of the A1 and A19—by way of improvements to the east-west A66, and of course the A19 Tees viaduct is currently a key constraint on the strategic road network.
On rail, the Minister said last week that improving northern transport infrastructure is vital to the success of what the Government have termed the northern powerhouse, and that the Government are committing £13 billion to transport improvements in this Parliament. However, it was promised in 2012 that projects that would benefit the north-east would be delivered between 2014 and 2019, such as maximising the value of the north trans-Pennine electrification through capacity enhancement at Huddersfield station. Much of that has now been delayed until after 2020. There were also hopes for improvements to transform Sunderland, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, and to improve capacity at Newcastle.
To conclude, the recent history of transport in the north-east has been less than inspiring. It is a story of hard-pressed local authorities doing their best for their communities, but in our view they are too often thwarted by rules imposed upon them from the outside. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm today that the Government will give the North East combined authority the power needed to plan its own bus network and regulate bus services, the support needed to continue to improve transport for everyday passengers and the freedom to unleash the full potential of the north-east of the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on securing the debate? It has been quite clear from the remarks by hon. Members across the House just how important transport infrastructure and investment is to them and to all their constituents. I entirely buy the case that has been made that it supports growth and business and helps people to get to work, to shops and to services.
We do not have too long left in the debate, so I will scamper through as much as I can, and I will potentially have to follow some of it up afterwards.
John Stevenson
I appreciate the Minister giving way. I apologise for my late arrival, Sir Edward, which was in part due to the machinations of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
John Stevenson
I appreciate that the debate is very much about the north-east and the transport there, but connectivity between regions and cities is vital. We have heard good news about the A66. Will there be good news about the A69?
Andrew Jones
That was very good timing, from a comedy perspective. I will talk about roads if I get a moment a little bit later.
We are very keen to continue the work on rebalancing the economy. The northern powerhouse is a significant part of Government thinking and has driven much investment over the past few years. We have created Transport for the North, which is a key part of the concept of the northern powerhouse—it is about taking control of one’s destiny. Transport for the North is driving forward transport plans and will support economic growth across the whole of the north. There will be a £13 billion set of investments in Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west and the north-east during the course of this Parliament alone.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does Transport for the North’s remit actually go any further than the corridor that Minister referred to? I have certainly not seen a great deal of impact or any ideas for the rest of the north, which, if the Minister looks at a map, goes a bit further north than Leeds.
Andrew Jones
Transport for the North’s remit is the north: it is north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west. That point needs to be made to it and I will happily make it.
Let me get back to the world of buses. I, too, am a passionate supporter of buses. I know that Nexus and the North East combined authority have been working hard to improve local transport in the north-east, and I applaud their work. The Pop card has been a great success and allows for a seamless, inter-modal shift between bus services, the metro and the Shields ferry. However, we have to go much further.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South highlighted her disappointment that the traffic commissioner rejected the bid from NECA for the quality contract scheme. It is because of the desire for local areas to have more influence on the provision of their bus services that we have developed the Bus Services Bill. When drafting the Bill, we had clear objectives in mind: to increase bus passenger numbers and improve services. The Bill will have a range of tools to enable that, including new and enhanced partnership arrangements—although that might not be appropriate in all areas—and the provision for local authorities to have franchising powers. Franchising will enable authorities to specify the services that passengers want and to deliver an integrated network.
Our intention is that mayoral combined authorities will have automatic access, with other areas having access if granted with the Secretary of State’s consent. However, we are neutral about the methods that are chosen on a local basis. I do not mind what local authorities choose to do, as long as they achieve their objective, which is to put more passengers on the seats of buses.
The metro is clearly a fantastic asset for Tyne and Wear. I remember its arrival—the home where I was brought up is just to the south of there—and it was fantastic. That is why we are supporting it with a £317 million capital grant to reinvigorate the system and ensure that it continues to provide an efficient public transport system. We are also supporting the day-to-day operational costs of the system with a revenue grant of £203 million.
We have talked a bit in the debate about the business case. Nexus is working up a business case for further investment in the metro system up until 2030. Hon. Members asked whether the Department was open to that. My Department is actually working with Nexus to develop that business case, so yes, we are extremely open to it. I cannot give an indication of the timing of when that will be decided upon; we have to receive the case first. I am also aware that NECA has looked at a wide range of options for extensions, some of which would directly benefit the constituency of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. I also very much like the idea of Hitachi providing the metro’s new rolling stock. “From the north-east, for the north-east” is a very attractive message.
Rail has been mentioned, so I should highlight the fact that Network Rail will be spending £40 billion between 2014 and 2019, in addition to the High Speed 2 investments. The key benefits that we will see locally will be in the new franchises: Northern and TransPennine Express. By 2019 we will see brand new TPE trains in service, two new TPE trains an hour between Newcastle and Manchester, an hourly TPE service between Newcastle and Edinburgh and additional services from Sunderland to Middlesbrough and Newcastle.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am grateful for that information, but if those services do not stop at Chester-le-Street, they are not actually going to improve things for my constituents at all.
Andrew Jones
Clearly trains have to stop if people are going to get on them. That argument does not seem to me a difficult one, but it is one that has to be built in to the franchise arrangements. I will happily take that back. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line. The North East local enterprise partnership has asked us to consider a bid for development funding for the reintroduction of passenger services on that line, which seems to me to be very positive.
There has been some caution regarding HS2, which seems to me to be entirely unreasonable. HS2 will free up capacity on our network, inject capacity to allow more services to be provided and deliver benefits of £103 billion to the UK economy, around one third of which we expect to be in the north of England. Some 70% of the jobs that will be supported by HS2 are expected to be outside of London, so HS2 is an important part of our network.
We have not talked much about roads. Not only will we have a motorway running to the north-east for the first time ever, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), but there are also schemes to the west of Newcastle. With regard to today’s announcements, I can confirm that we have done five strategic studies in the Department for Transport as part of the road investment strategy. As part of those, the A66 will be dualled and there will be work on the north-west quadrant of the M60. That is part of the road investment strategy from 2020 to 2025, so the idea that the north-west is getting everything and the north-east is ignored is not true. There was a further announcement, which has not necessarily been picked up yet: that the Tees Valley east-west connections are also being approved to take the business case forward to the next stage. That is effectively a Darlington north-western bypass. That was a further positive announcement today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) talked about people being doom-mongers and wondering whether anything would happen in people’s lifetimes. I was asked by a colleague whether HS2 would happen in anyone’s lifetime and I suggested that, as we were starting to do the build in the spring, it would be quite a good idea to hang on—we do not want a by-election. I agree entirely on the merits of the Borders line. It is one of the most beautiful parts of our United Kingdom, and it is a big success. I will be very happy to see it extended. That sounds like a good idea, but I have not seen anything further on it.
This is my last point. I hope that this quick canter through the various announcements that have been made has highlighted the fact that significant investment is taking place in road and rail. We have seen air capacity increased. We have changes taking place to buses—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister should please give the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) 30 seconds to wind up.
Andrew Jones
I heartily support all that is happening and the Government’s strong commitment to the north-east.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the Minister. I look forward to further debates with him on bus services when the legislation returns, and I will hold him to his point about that being open to other areas—I may also be debating that with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I will also hold the Minister to his point about the business case for the metro. We need progress, and I hope the Department will consider that a matter of priority.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transport in the North East.
Written Statements
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Autumn Statement
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
Today I have published a draft updated Charter for Budget Responsibility, a copy of which has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. The draft sets out the new fiscal framework and changes to the operation of the welfare cap.
The draft Charter includes modified guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility and has been published in line with Section 6(4) of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act. This requires that if the Treasury proposes to modify the guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility included in the Charter, a draft of the modified guidance must be published at least 28 days before the modified Charter is laid before Parliament. The updated Charter will be laid before Parliament, and a debate and vote scheduled, after the Christmas recess.
[HCWS278]
Autumn Statement: Measures with Immediate Effect
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
As part of autumn statement 2016, the Government have announced that the legislation for the following measures will have immediate effect.
Petroleum revenue tax: cutting administration costs for the oil industry
The Government are introducing legislation to change the returns process for petroleum revenue tax (PRT) in order to reduce administrative burdens for the oil and gas sector. This will allow participators to opt fields out of the PRT regime completely. Operational changes will also simplify the reporting requirements for PRT. The changes will be effective from 23 November 2016 using HM Revenue and Customs’ collection and management powers. This will ensure participators can take advantage of the changes as soon as possible.
First year allowances for charge point infrastructure
The Government are introducing legislation to incentivise investment in ultra-low emissions vehicles (ULEVs). The 100% first-year allowance will allow businesses to deduct charge-point investments from their pre-tax profits in the year of purchase. The relief is designed to encourage the use of electric vehicles by increasing charge-point availability. The changes will take effect from 23 November 2016 to avoid delays to planned investments.
Employee shareholder status
The Government are introducing legislation to remove the capital gains tax exemption and income tax reliefs associated with shares awarded under employee share- holder status. This is in response to evidence suggesting that the status is primarily being used for tax planning. The legislation will have effect in relation to employee share-holder agreements entered into on or after 1 December 2016 in order to prevent forestalling, while allowing outstanding agreements to be finalised. Due to the requirement that seven days must pass between an employee receiving independent advice on an offer and becoming an employee shareholder, this will allow any individual who has received advice before 23 November 2016 the opportunity to finalise the outstanding arrangement. The effective date is to be 2 December where advice is received on 23 November prior to 1.30 pm. Existing employee shareholder agreements will not be affected.
Further details on the measures listed above are contained in the draft legislation, explanatory notes and tax information and impact notes published on the gov.uk website.
As part of autumn statement 2016, the Government have announced that the legislation for the following measures will take effect before the introduction of Finance Bill 2017.
Enterprise investment scheme share conversions
The Government are introducing legislation to amend the qualifying requirements for the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme to clarify the application of the rules to share conversion rights. This change will be effective for shares issued on or after 5 December 2016. This is a wholly relieving measure to enable the Government to provide customers with certainty of treatment and enable the processing of a backlog of cases. Further detail on this measure will be contained in the draft legislation, explanatory note and tax information and impact note to be published on the gov.uk website on 5 December 2016.
Hybrids and other mismatches
The Government are issuing a technical note in relation to legislation that was passed as part of the Finance Act 2016, in order to improve the new hybrid mismatch regime. Following consultation with stakeholders, it was agreed that further technical modifications were required in two areas of the legislation. These were with regard to financial sector timing claims and the rules concerning deductions for amortisation. The technical note will set out the detail of the changes required and will be published on the gov.uk website on 5 December 2016. These modifications will take effect along with the new regime on 1 January 2017. Corresponding legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2017.
As part of the autumn statement 2016, the Government have made an amendment to public notice 733: flat rate scheme for small businesses.
VAT flat rate scheme
To counter abuse of the VAT flat rate scheme (FRS), the Government are introducing a new 16.5% rate for businesses with limited costs. The new rate will be introduced by statutory instrument and will come into effect on 1 April 2017 with draft legislation published on 5 December 2016. In order to prevent forestalling, HM Revenue and Customs has amended public notice 733: Flat rate scheme for small businesses. The relevant sections (sections 8.2 and 9.7) have force of law and ensure that businesses cannot avoid the new rate by arranging to issue invoices, or receive payments, before 1 April 2017 for services to be performed on or after that date. The amended public notice will be published on 23 November 2016 on the gov.uk website and the relevant rules will take effect from 24 November 2016.
[HCWS277]
House of Lords
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mental Health Units: Police Response
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the use of force by police officers when responding to emergency calls from mental health units.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, there is ongoing work to ensure that any operational police decisions on the use of force in a mental health setting are necessary and proportionate. This includes the development of a new protocol on police attendance, national collection from 2017 to 2018 of police data on any force used and a request to local areas to scrutinise the use of any Taser in a mental health setting.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. However, she will know that a recent Independent Police Complaints Commission report stated that people suffering from a mental illness are four times more likely to die after police use of force against them than other individuals. Will the Government look at the possibility that better training for police officers in how to deal with people suffering from a mental health illness might alleviate the need for them ever to use Tasers because they might understand better how to deal with the situation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Seven people with mental health concerns died in police custody in 2015-16 out of 14 deaths in total. That of course is still too many. The number of people with mental health problems in police custody has significantly come down since the Government decreed that nobody with a mental health problem should be held in a police cell but should be taken to a place of safety in every situation where that is possible, and never for children. On the second part of her question, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: training is essential for police officers, not just in combating crime but in knowing the symptoms of somebody with mental health problems.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. Do the Government agree that in situations in the community where others are at risk because somebody is becoming very violent, it is appropriate to call the police and inappropriate to expect ambulance and other staff to attempt to use any form of restraint? The police are trained and are therefore safer than people using restraint who are not appropriately trained. The College of Policing is actively addressing this issue at the moment through its revised training guidelines.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness is right—restraint is the last possible option. It is certainly not for ambulance staff to deal with someone who is extremely violent and a danger to both themselves and others. So, yes, in rare circumstances the use of Taser will be necessary.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. Is not one of the fundamental problems that there is a lack of appropriate levels of staffing in many mental health units and a lack of appropriate levels of community mental health services on whom the police can call under such circumstances? What representations has the Home Office made to its colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that those gaps in service provision are being addressed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right to raise this issue. The Government recognise the need to invest in places of safety and £15 million has been allocated to 88 projects in England to improve provision for those in mental health crises, including increasing places of safety.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Will the Minister define what she means by the last possible option? What are the Government doing to develop a humane alternative to the use of Tasers in psychiatric wards?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am happy to tell the noble Baroness what I mean by “last possible option”. Something like Taser would be used only when all other methods of restraint are deemed not appropriate or to have failed, and where distance is required between the police and the person who is being extremely violent. That is what I mean by the last option. As to never using it, we can never say that it will not be used because the alternatives—I talked about this with the noble Baroness the other day—are to use more extreme methods of restraint, and we would not want that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
In the figures in the IPCC investigation, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred, of 191 cases of serious incidents, one in five people were known to have mental health concerns. They were more likely to be restrained and experience multiple uses of force, and were four times more likely to die after force had been used than those not known to be mentally ill. Is not the reality that this year is the third year in a row that the Government have failed to meet their promise that mental health funding in local areas would increase? Is not the reality that until the Government seek to address this problem we will not get at the heart of the issue of the continuing extent to which the police are called out in situations involving people with mental health issues?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I dispute the noble Lord’s assertion about funding because the Government have committed to investing an additional £1 billion into mental health services by 2020 to ensure improved mental health support in the community and for people in accident and emergency, as well as crisis response provision and treatment for both adults and children.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem behind this Question is not one for the police? This is a matter for the health service, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said. It cannot be the case that police officers are called to actually come into mental health units unless there has been a major failure of care by the health service. This is blaming the people who have to clear up the mess rather than dealing with the problem itself.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord and I agree on one level because if someone has a mental health problem or is experiencing a mental health crisis, that is a health issue. However, if someone demonstrates behaviour that is either a danger to themselves or to others, including the staff in mental health settings, there may be no other option. Of course these situations are rare, but as I say there may be no other option than for police restraint to be used.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to the Government’s intention to put an additional £1 billion into mental health services between now and, I think she said, 2020. Can she say when that money is going to be delivered? If, as I suspect, it is what might be called back loaded, what is to happen in the meantime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the noble Baroness is being slightly cynical, but I will write to her with a breakdown of when the funding might be expected to be released.
Waterson Review
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when their response to the Waterson review of secondary ticketing will be published.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
Professor Michael Waterson’s independent report on consumer protection measures applying to online secondary ticketing makes a number of recommendations which deserve to be fully considered by all those concerned with ticketing, live entertainment and law enforcement. The new Government are taking time to look very closely at the recommendations and will publish a response in due course.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. What would be her response to somebody who discovers that they have purchased the wrong ticket, when the Government have yet to implement the Act in question?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The Act has of course come into force and there have been prosecutions on ticketing, although they are often made through fraud law rather than consumer law. The advice I would give to consumers is to get in touch with the excellent Citizens Advice service. If they have evidence of fraud they should contact Action Fraud, and there is also the possibility of trading standards taking action. One of Professor Waterson’s recommendations is that more work should be done on that.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that modern-day touts who use bots in the form of software that stores hundreds of credit card accounts and can instantly sweep the market of tickets the moment they go on sale, only to reappear half an hour later through their colleagues on the secondary market at highly inflated prices, corrupts the market and denies the true fans of sport and musical events the opportunity to buy tickets? These touts should be subject to legislative action by the Government through the Digital Economy Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As always, my noble friend makes some powerful points. He will be glad to know that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has asked for a round table to be held with the industry on this matter next week, on 30 November, in order to bring together all the interested parties to look at the issue of bots following very useful discussions on the Digital Economy Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lord, the Minister told me in May this year that the response to Waterson would be coming in due course but we are still being given the same answer. Meanwhile, the law, passed in this House and elsewhere, is being flouted. Justin Bieber tickets on sale at £70 can be bought for £1,600, while a £127 rugby ticket is selling at £1,250. None of these people are keeping to the law because they are not giving the information. Given the Government’s very welcome ban on letting agents charging tenants fees, will the Minister take similar action to deal with ticket touts?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I have already explained that we are looking at the problem of bots, which has delayed the formal response to the report, but of course, we published the report straightaway and action is beginning to be taken. I do not recommend that consumers pay such prices. The report makes it clear that there is also a duty on the part of primary ticket sellers to think about how they can distribute tickets in a sensible way, perhaps by holding ballots or selling to fans. I know the disappointment this can bring—I have seen my own nieces in tears because they could not get tickets—but sometimes tickets do become available later. However, this is an important issue and that is why we spoke to Professor Waterson. The bots issue is very much on our minds and we are looking at it to see if the existing law on computer misuse is adequate.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has clearly made herself extremely conversant with digital ticketing purchasing software, but the clue is in the name, is it not? Will she confirm that she is favourably disposed towards dealing with bots well in advance of the final government report on and response to Waterson, which, ominously, she describes as coming “in due course”?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We are certainly keen to get to the bottom of the issue of bots and to find the right way forward. There was consensus in committee in the other place that it was right to try to sort out the bots issue before our formal response. But as I said, the Waterson report is with us and work is in hand on this important issue. I am told that there is a proposed federal law on bots—“better online ticketing service”—although I understand the situation is a little different in the United States.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, in response to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, suggested that a form of redress could be sought through citizens advice bureaux. Given that very few councils can now afford to have a trading standards department, is the Minister aware that Citizens Advice has had huge cuts in its funding?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am of course aware of the problems Citizens Advice and trading standards have with funding; we have discussed that in this House before. One of the points Professor Waterson made in his very useful report, which we are looking at very seriously, is how we make sure there is appropriate funding for the kind of investigations we all want in this area. Interestingly, secondary ticketing is not top of the complaints we get. They are often about the primary ticket sellers, rather than the secondary market we have been debating through this report.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I again refer to my interest as listed in the register. Is not what the noble Baroness is describing a failure in the market for entertainment tickets? Might not the secondary ticketing sellers be colluding with the primary ticket sellers—a situation that suits all the parties involved rather well, because they do quite well out of it? Should we not be looking at how the market as a whole functions?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That was one of the reasons why we asked Professor Waterson, who is an economist from Warwick University, to look at this, and that is not the conclusion he came to in his report. There are benefits from the secondary platforms, which give greater protection than buying from a tout or on social media. They guarantee a replacement if you cannot get in. We have a big tourist industry in this country, and it is very important that when tourists come here—there are more and more of them since the depreciation of the pound—they are able to access our amazing sporting events, theatres and so on. There are difficulties, which I acknowledge, but in general this market works well and has its advantages. Obviously, the bots issue is a big one.
Infrastructure Improvements: Funding
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the National Infrastructure delivery plan 2016 to 2021, what assessment they have made of the ability of the private sector to part-fund infrastructure improvements.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
In referring to my interests on the register, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the private sector plays a vital role in the financing and delivery of our infrastructure. The private sector will deliver around half of the projects due to complete in the next five years. The Government will continue to create the right environment to encourage private investment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Given the 2% increase in the insurance premium tax and the major housebuilding programme announced today, will my noble friend commit not to build any houses in inappropriate places, such as flood plains, but to undertake a major sustainable drainage building programme and invite more money from the private sector to fund flood defences, in particular the insurance sector and pension funds?
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend has asked three questions. On building on flood plains, whether planning consent is given for a particular development is a matter for local planning authorities, but my noble friend will be aware of the National Planning Policy Framework, which—I paraphrase—basically discourages development in inappropriate areas and encourages development away from areas at high risk of flooding. On drainage schemes, the Government have committed £2.5 billion of investment between now and 2021, and I believe that the Chancellor announced a further increase in the Autumn Statement a few moments ago. Finally, on private finance, the Environment Agency and local authorities can bid for private finance for schemes that are outwith the public sector scheme and, subject to value for money, they have a good chance of succeeding. There is a new partnering scheme whereby local communities and landowners can bid for funds alongside Defra and make progress with schemes which would not be able to go ahead if they were solely dependent on public finance.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, why should local authorities be held be responsible, as the Minister said, for planning matters in areas that flood, when it is the taxpayer that picks up part of the bill at the end of the day?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord may be referring to the introduction of Flood Re, which enables those who previously had difficulty in getting insurance now to get some. I very much hope the noble Lord welcomes that initiative.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that to deliver the infrastructure programme which the Government wish to achieve will require the contribution not just of large contractors and manufacturers but of small and medium-sized businesses, especially in the building industry—that is the way to get the agility and flexibility needed. What progress are the Government making on engaging with those two communities of constructors—the small and medium-sized enterprises—to deliver on the housing targets which we all agree need to be met?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord was, of course, a Minister in the relevant department. He may be aware that, a few months ago, Ministers in CLG announced an initiative to bring back into the market the small builders who have disappeared from it in recent years. The initiative was aimed at making sites available in slightly smaller packages so that the smaller builder would have a chance of developing them, rather than relying on sites that are so big that only major developers can accommodate them.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that private finance initiatives have a very bad record of leaving a legacy of years, or even decades, of inflated debt on projects that are no longer required, such as schools which have been built in the wrong place and accordingly have no pupils, and, as such, need to be evaluated very carefully before being undertaken?
Lord Young of Cookham
I think the noble Lord is somewhat harsh in his verdict on the PFI. For example, the NAO says of the PFI:
“Most private finance projects are built close to the agreed time, price and specification”.
It further states that PFI contracts provide,
“two key advantages over conventional procurement … transparency of pricing in that the public sector knows in advance how much it will be paying”,
and a,
“consistent approach to maintenance as the SPV”—
the special purchase vehicle—
“is under an obligation to maintain the asset in good condition”.
Of course, some projects have not gone correctly, but this country is a world leader in the development of private finance and we should be proud of what we have achieved.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
Order. It is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, while congratulating the Chancellor on his excellent Statement committing to building more housing, can I ask my noble friend what is to be done about the decision by the European Banking Authority to increase the capital weighting required for loans to small housebuilders from 100% to 150%, which is greater than is required for unsecured credit card debt and will result in less availability of money for builders to build and also require banks to make provision for their existing loans? I declare my interest which is on the register.
Lord Young of Cookham
There is only one answer for my noble friend: I will write to him.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, on the related issue of research and development, of course we welcome what the Chancellor said earlier today on the proposed increase of £2 billion up to the year 2020. However, does the Minister accept that even with this commitment, if it is realised, the United Kingdom will still be below the OECD average expenditure in this area and below the 3% of GDP that the OECD recommends to all developed countries?
Lord Young of Cookham
Again, the noble Lord is somewhat harsh in his judgment. I very much hope he will welcome the extra money that has been found at a time of great difficulty for investment in research and development.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the last Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that infrastructure for the northern powerhouse could be paid for mainly by the Chinese. As many Ministers now talk about the importance of British independence, should the Government be quite so dependent on China for infrastructure?
Lord Young of Cookham
I very much hope that this country will remain open for business and that we will continue to attract private inward investment to help modernise infrastructure. We have a world-class regulatory system and strong financial and capital markets. I see no reason at all why we should do anything to discourage inward investment in our infrastructure from overseas investors.
Royal Navy: Harpoon Anti-ship Missiles
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what intelligence assessment they conducted before making the decision to withdraw the Harpoon anti-ship missiles from Royal Navy service at the end of 2018 without replacement.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Royal Navy continuously reviews the capabilities it requires. Inevitably, this means choices must be made on where to invest. Work is ongoing across the MoD to consider options for Harpoon replacement. It has long been the established practice not to comment publicly on intelligence matters, as to do so would likely prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his Answer but it fills me with despair. We are paying off HMS “Ocean” and HMS “Diligence” early. We are paying HMS “Bulwark” into reserve for five years. We have 19 escorts, which is a national disgrace, two of which are tied alongside because of lack of manpower due to cuts made by the coalition. Six destroyers of the 19 have major intercooler problems and there is no programme for exactly when they will be repaired. The House of Commons Defence Committee said it is appalling that we have no real replacements for the ageing Type 23s, and now we are removing Harpoon. This is not an abstract issue. For a number of years we will have ships deployed that might suddenly come across an opponent and have to fight—as happened to me and others. We will have ships sunk and people—boys and girls, as mine were—killed. That is not a good thing. Is it possible to look at having available, on standby, some Block II Harpoons, ready to be pulled out very quickly should we need them for our ships? If not, we are standing into danger.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord paints a false picture of the Royal Navy, which for the first time in a generation is growing. We need to be aware of that. He asked a specific question about Harpoon. The current batch of Harpoon missiles we carry has now reached its natural end of life. To replace it would require significant investment in a new missile stockpile. It was the Royal Navy’s judgment that that would be a less than optimal use of its budget for future investment.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, when the coalition Government took office in 2010, the finances of the Ministry of Defence were in complete chaos, largely because of decisions made by the previous Government, including the buying of the two magnificent aircraft carriers that we all look forward to seeing in service one day. Although we had to make a great many cuts, would my noble friend take down to the Ministry of Defence the message from this House that perhaps, now that the situation has changed in so many ways, the Royal Navy and other services need a little more money spent on them?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. It is important to understand the larger picture, as I alluded to a minute ago. For the first time in many decades, the Royal Navy is growing in both size and capability. Its judgment was that investing in the carriers, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, the new submarines and the offshore patrol vessels, as well a range of missiles and capabilities, rather than reinvesting in a 1980s weapons system, represented the right order of priority for the Royal Navy’s overall capability. That firmly remains its judgment.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister set out which of the items in the long list of problems we have just heard are not correct and which are?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, Lord West, painted a picture of a dysfunctional Royal Navy. I repudiate that picture entirely. It is a Royal Navy that can be proud of the investment that is being placed in it. One of the proudest features are the carriers that the noble Lord, Lord West, was instrumental in commissioning.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, all our Type 23 frigates and half our Type 45s carry the Harpoon missile. Will the Minister tell the House the effect of the inevitable loss of capability and can he reassure the House that we will not be putting these ships and their crews at extra risk during this period?
Earl Howe
It is important to understand the context in which a weapon such as Harpoon would be used. Harpoon would be likely to be used only in open ocean against frigates and above in a state-on-state conflict when our naval assets would most likely be operating within a coalition task group with a range of offensive systems at its disposal. There are ways other than Harpoon of delivering that offensive capability.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, one press report described Harpoon as obsolete, but better than having nothing at all; another said that the Royal Navy without Harpoon was less capable of fighting an enemy vessel than our Navy in the 19th century; and a third likened it to Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar getting rid of his cannon and relying on muskets. That may be, but if we are engaged in a possible conflict, as my noble friend Lord West mentioned, how will the Royal Navy respond effectively without anti-ship missiles?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Royal Navy ships habitually work in task groups with a range of offensive and defensive assets. A task group can be made up of a number of different platforms, including submarines, surface ships, helicopters and, from 2021, our new Queen Elizabeth carriers. In turn, those platforms host a variety of complementary capabilities, such as anti-surface warfare, air defence, intelligence and so on. It is important to look at the overall context.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, sometimes in these debates we forget about our service men and women. At the end of September, HMS “Portland” was docked in Dar es Salaam, and I had the honour of meeting Captain Paul Stroude, the commanding officer. HMS “Portland” was patrolling the difficult waters of east Africa in a brilliant fashion. While we have this debate, will the Minister join me in paying fulsome tribute to our brave and skilful members of the Royal Navy for their outstanding service across the globe?
Children and Social Work Bill [HL]
Wednesday 23rd November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 69-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 80KB) - (22 Nov 2016)
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Duty to assess and promote physical and mental health and emotional well-being
(1) Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3)(b) insert —“(c) to assess and promote his physical and mental health and emotional well-being”.(3) After subsection (3C) insert —“(3D) Any assessment conducted under subsection (3)(c) of a child’s mental health and well-being shall be performed as soon as is reasonably possible after the child enters care and conducted by a health professional with sufficient mental health knowledge, skills and competence to conduct these assessments.(3E) Each clinical commissioning group must take steps to assist the local authority in its area in the exercise of its functions under subsection (3)(c).(3F) The clinical commissioning group for each area must appoint at least one registered medical practitioner and one nurse for the purpose of coordinating the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (3E).””
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, as I have said throughout the passage of the Bill, my aim is to secure practical improvements in the care and support that children entering care receive. We have such a responsibility to help improve the life chances of that most vulnerable group of children, given their troubled start in life.
On Report, I was very grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Nash, agreed to meet me to discuss my concerns about why the current approach to identifying and responding to the emotional and mental health needs of children in care is simply not working—a point confirmed in the Care Quality Commission’s report Not Seen, Not Heard earlier this year. I found my meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and Edward Timpson extremely helpful and constructive, and I was particularly grateful for the opportunity to hear direct from the two co-chairs of the expert advisory group set up by Ministers to develop care pathways for children with mental health problems. I look forward to their report, which is due in October 2017.
It was clear from that meeting that there was much that we agreed on, but there is no time to be lost. The Bill presents an excellent and timely opportunity to make further progress, given that children in care are four times more likely than their peers to have a mental health difficulty and 45% of children entering care have a diagnosable mental health condition—such as anxiety and depression, hyperactivity or an autistic spectrum disorder—a figure that rises to a truly alarming 72% for children entering residential care.
I listened very carefully to what the Ministers said, most particularly to their wish for flexibility and the ability to test approaches to improving mental health support for children in care. I understand why they do not want legislation that is overly prescriptive. I reflected very carefully on this, and my new amendment is cast very much in that light. In short, my amendment today seeks to ensure that local authorities, supported by clinical commissioning groups, assess and promote the mental health and emotional well-being of children entering care. It does not prescribe the time, form or manner of any mental health assessment, and provides for the appointment of a designated health professional, a designated doctor or nurse, to help commissioners to fulfil their responsibilities to improve the health of children in care, including their mental health and emotional well-being.
I want to stress a few points to address some concerns that I know have been raised. First, in this amendment I have sought to avoid prescription in terms of the nature, the timing and the staff who undertake the assessment—the who, when, how and where, if you like. I recognise that the expert advisory group is well placed to advise on such matters. My amendment is very much about the “what” and offers an important opportunity to ensure that the commitments made in Future in Mind—to address fragmentation, to support co-ordination and to intervene early to promote good mental health and prevent escalation to significant mental health conditions later on—are delivered.
Secondly, a physical health assessment is already in place. My amendment would simply result in an extension of its scope so that an initial mental health assessment was undertaken as part of the existing health assessment—that is, its scope would be extended to include both physical and mental health. It would not mean the introduction of a brand-new process, with the inevitable burdens attached.
Thirdly, the integrated approach that I am proposing would also avoid concerns that a separate mental health assessment might be stigmatising. It recognises the close links and interactions between physical and mental health—all part of parity of esteem, of course.
Fourthly, given the nature of the trauma that many children will have experienced before entering care, the initial assessment could be undertaken by a range of health professionals, including nurses, with appropriate training and knowledge of the emotional and mental health needs of this group of children, particularly such issues as attachment style. Of course, any more serious needs identified in the initial assessment could be referred to a more specialist clinician in the normal way.
Fifthly, there is no presumption that every child assessed will need a specific clinical intervention. For some it will be about emotional support, which may come from a teacher responsible for pastoral care, a social worker, some other form of therapeutic support, peer support, group work, school counselling and other ways of supporting emotional well-being and building good relationships. Of course, those assessed with higher levels of clinical needs may well need a clinical intervention and, indeed, should receive it as soon as possible to prevent further escalation.
I remain convinced that this approach would assist greatly with finding appropriate placements for young people, with the right support built in both for them and for foster carers and other support workers, and would therefore lead to greater placement stability, which is so critical to a good-quality experience in care. I am aware from my researches that a range of integrated assessment models are already being used in other settings, such as the CHAT model in the youth justice system, where all young people aged 10 to 18 entering secure accommodation are assessed for their mental health needs, or what is called the DAWBA model, which I will not spell out in detail but which can be used for a younger age group. I certainly would not wish to prescribe the appropriate model myself, but it must be child-centred and age-appropriate. Implementing this amendment would provide an ideal opportunity to test out such approaches.
In conclusion, the amendment, which has strong support from the children’s sector and three royal colleges, would ensure that the emotional and mental health needs of children in care are identified early and that they and those caring for them can receive the support required to meet their needs and prevent the current unacceptably high rate of escalation to mental health conditions, which can affect children long into adulthood.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and know that he shares my wish for further practical progress. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Baroness’s amendment, to which I added my name. I am very grateful to her for bringing this back and to the Minister for the good work that the Government are doing in this area.
I work with a number of people who have experienced care. In particular, I work with Dr Mark Kerr. He did not begin his education until he entered a young offender institution. He now has two degrees and recently obtained his doctorate. He is a great champion and academic working on the needs of young people in care and care leavers, and he always emphasises that mental health has been grossly underestimated in terms of meeting needs. If more young people are to be as successful as he is after coming out of care, we need to do far better at meeting their mental health needs. I am grateful for the work of the Minister and his colleagues in this area, but I think we need to support the noble Baroness if we are to make the difference necessary.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, added my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment, and I echo what she said about the many organisations which have supported it. Many times during the Bill’s passage, mention has been made of the postcode lottery regarding the performance of local authorities around the country. If this assessment procedure is adopted, who will perform the quality assurance of the delivery of the assessment around the country? It cannot be the expert advisory board, which has a completely different purpose.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, to which I added my name. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on her persistence on this, which has been well recognised by those who work in the sector.
As a former director of social services, I think it is essential that we recognise the need to assess many of these children. That is not to say that large numbers of them will necessarily progress to the most demanding parts of the system, but we know that if you do not assess and pick these problems up early, they go in only one direction: they get worse. We end up with children who have already had a pretty tough time having to fight their way into a CAMHS system which is itself struggling to cope with the demands made on it. We need to give children coming into care, those who are looked after, a good shot at getting access to the services that they need.
I think that the amendment has met the Government’s concerns about flexibility, which were legitimate. This House and the Government have always argued for parity of esteem between mental and physical health. This is another piece of the jigsaw to try to ensure that.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, times without number during the Bill’s various stages, noble Lords from all quarters have highlighted the fact that children in care are four to five times more likely to have a mental health problem than children in the general population. We have advanced convincing arguments at each stage that there is a pressing need for all children entering care to be given the parity of esteem to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred between physical and mental health assessments by appropriately qualified professionals.
We thought that the Minister was going down that track on Report when he tabled an amendment to Clause 1 to make it clear that all local authorities must promote both the physical and the mental health of children in care. That was certainly an important and welcome step, because the current system simply is not working. However, he was not willing to go what we regarded as the logical step beyond that.
It is fair to say that the Minister set out his reasons why he and his colleague, the Minister for Vulnerable Children, Mr Timpson, are not in favour of that. It has been argued that such a move would be too prescriptive in terms of when and how the assessment should be carried out and who might be qualified to do so. It has been argued that the assessment would be seen as potentially stigmatising, and it has also been said that it would cut across the work currently being undertaken by the Department for Education’s expert working group.
I do not think that any of those three holds water. I will not spend any time on the first two but in terms of the expert working group, it should be said that the Alliance for Children in Care and Care Leavers, which has assiduously provided noble Lords with briefings on various aspects of the Bill throughout its progress, is concerned at the Government’s failure to fully support this amendment. That organisation has 24 members, 21 of which are charities actively involved in the sector, but it also includes the Children’s Commissioner for England, the British Association of Social Workers and the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers.
All those involved in the alliance deal on a day-to-day basis with the mental health and emotional well-being of children in care. The alliance is a body of some substance, and it speaks with some authority. The Department for Education appears to acknowledge that, because the alliance is represented on its expert working group. While that group has the respect of most within the sector—noble Lords were certainly impressed when we met its co-chair, Alison O’Sullivan in September—it will not report until this time next year. As I said on Report, it means that many children will continue to have their mental health issues undiagnosed in the intervening period. Of course, it is not just the end of next year; it is the fact that when the recommendations come out and the Minister decides which to accept and implement, a suitable piece of legislation has to be found. That may not become available until after the next general election—and by that I mean the one scheduled for 2020.
We feel that that is much too far off into the distance. I remain at a loss as to why Ministers are not able to overcome their doubts and simply get on with filling what is palpably a serious gap in the services offered to children entering care. I know that the Minister has been considering representations made to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I am not alone in sharing her hope that he will have something positive to say in this area when he answers the debate, so that this matter, which has been discussed for too long, can at least move forward.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s amendment and congratulate her on all the hard work she has done to ensure that the Minister listens to what she has said. I have visited many schools recently, and I am really surprised at the number of children, especially those in care, who are suffering from depression and anxiety. If we can do anything to make sure that no child slips through the net, it would be perfect, because childhood lasts a lifetime and we must give children the best start in the world—especially children in care, who need us to consider them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that we have come so far in our scrutiny of this Bill and are now debating the final amendments. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the collected efforts of this House in bringing together different views and meeting a shared position have paid dividends that we can see in the Bill now before us.
I thank noble Lords for their time, attention and scrutiny, not only during the debates but in the many meetings and exchanges of correspondence between us. I am convinced that the House will be sending a Bill to the other place that will help ensure that all children, whatever their background, get the best start in life. I am grateful for this further opportunity to consider how collectively we can do more to promote the mental health and emotional well-being of looked-after children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, we had a positive discussion when the Minister for Vulnerable Children and I met her on 7 November along with the co-chairs of the expert working group. I am pleased that the co-chairs, Alison O’Sullivan and Professor Peter Fonagy, were able to give a full account of their work.
We have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, and have reflected on the informative debates in Committee and on Report. The way in which the mental health of looked-after children is assessed, and the timing and scope of those assessments, is one of the key areas within the expert group’s remit. The group is currently collecting evidence about approaches to assessment so that the assessment happens at the right time and with the right people involved. The group intends to consider the pros and cons of specialist assessment and the optimum method of assessment. Its work will specifically reference the Development and Wellbeing Assessment, the Comprehensive Health Assessment Tool, and the use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.
Our considered view, as I indicated on Report, is that we should not pre-empt the findings of the expert group. We need to let it develop its recommendations to be confident that we are making changes that will have the effect that I believe that we all, including the Department for Education, the Department of Health and NHS England, as well as noble Lords, want to see, and to which we are all committed. Of course, I completely understand the noble Baroness’s motivation: to ensure that opportunities to make progress are not lost ahead of October 2017, when the expert group is due to report, and I pay tribute to her for that. I am sure that the expert working group will want to engage with her and other noble Lords as it starts to consult expert witnesses.
I reassure the noble Baroness that we are not sitting idly waiting for the expert group to report. We are engaging with the Department of Health on its work with NHS England and Health Education England to identify how new training models for talking therapies might be expanded beyond healthcare services settings to, for example, school counsellors or those working in colleges. We are working with NHS England to roll out a new model of integrated mental health care in secure children’s homes to address needs holistically, co-ordinating the services of several providers. We have been testing the concept of a single point of contact in schools and CAMHS to improve collaborative working across schools and mental health services.
I also reiterate a commitment made on Report, which the Minister for Vulnerable Children has made to the Education Select Committee. The expert group plans to share the evidence base behind the chosen models and the pathway with interested parties, including noble Lords, in the spring. We are committed to acting on the findings of the expert group and will fully consider all the recommendations that it makes, including any recommendations that require legislation.
The amendment seeks to bolster what is already in Section 22 of the Children Act 1989, which places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children. It is implicit that this means promoting their mental health and emotional well-being. Care planning regulations spell out what that means in more detail: undertaking health assessments that explicitly address mental and emotional health as well as physical health. I am very happy to revisit the relevant guidance and regulations to consider whether the terminology might benefit from being more explicit on the importance of mental health.
We had a helpful and constructive debate in Committee about strengthening the first corporate parenting principle in Clause 1 so that it included an explicit reference to mental and physical health. We have amended the Bill accordingly. In the accompanying statutory guidance we shall emphasise this further. Together with the principle that local authorities must have regard to the need to help looked-after children make the best use of services, it is a powerful lever to bring health to the table.
Alongside the work of the expert group, however, and given the importance of getting this right, I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that we will test new approaches to mental health assessments for looked-after children. We are in the early stages of working out what this should look like and we will want providers themselves, and children and young people, to help us develop and shape the model. We have not settled on the number of pilots, but our initial thinking is that between six and 10 would be sensible. Of course, we would want to ensure that they were representative in terms of factors such as urban and rural, and the characteristics of the looked-after population. What I can tell noble Lords today is that we plan to begin the pilots in April or May next year, and that they will run in parallel to the considerations of the expert working group. We intend to pilot mental health assessments as part of the existing health assessments that children receive when they start to be looked after.
We believe that running pilots in a number of local authority areas, potentially on a regional basis, to look at how mental health can be better assessed as part of the wider health assessment, will be complementary to the work of the expert group. It will also help to inform the implementation of any of its recommendations. These pilots will also guard against treating mental health in isolation from physical health and ensure that we address the needs of the whole child in a holistic manner. While I am not in a position to give chapter and verse on the details of the pilots this afternoon, I want to put on record our intention to develop and pilot a model of a holistic health assessment.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about a postcode lottery and how we would quality-assure the delivery of these pilots is something that we will consider. It is an important point and we will ask the expert group to look at it. We will ensure that the pilots look at quality-assurance models to see how any assessment should be assured. The independent reviewing officers will also have a role in ensuring that plans deliver what children need.
I will say a personal thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her continued passion and commitment on this issue. I hope that the commitments that I have made today will provide sufficient reassurance for her to be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his response, which I thought was very positive and constructive. I know that he has listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward, both inside this Chamber and outside it—there have been, as others have said, a lot of people in the sector campaigning hard for further progress in this area. I was encouraged by quite a few of the things that the noble Lord said. I will not run through them all, but I noted in particular what he said about the further work to be done to guidance and regulations to more fully underline the importance of integrated assessments and of giving really good consideration to mental health and emotional well-being issues.
I am very encouraged by and was grateful to hear the commitment that he made today at the Dispatch Box, announcing that there will be, I think he said, between six and 10 pilots starting in April or May next year, to test out new approaches to mental health assessments for children in care. As he said, this will happen in parallel to the valuable and important work of the expert working group. I consider this to be a really important step forward, so I am very grateful to him and I look forward to making any contribution that I can to the development and implementation of these pilots. I thank him and all noble Lords who have participated in this discussion and I will say again how pleased I am by this progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) relationships;”
Lord Nash
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, Clause 2 requires local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. The local offer will set out the services provided by a local authority to assist its care leavers as they move into adulthood and independent living. It should include services relating to health and well-being, education and training, employment, accommodation, and participation in society. On Report, noble Lords expressed concern that services relating to relationships were not included in this list. I recognise this concern and agree that strong and supportive relationships are critical to supporting care leavers to lead successful independent lives. I committed to consider in detail whether an amendment to the Bill would be the best way of securing the necessary progress in this area and, on reflection, we believe that it would. I have therefore tabled this amendment to add services relating to relationships to Clause 2. If local authorities believe that particular services may assist care leavers in or in preparing for adulthood and independent living, they will now have to publish information about these services as part of their local offer, alongside information about services relating to the other five areas stipulated in the clause.
The remainder of the amendments in this group should not, I hope, detain the House for too long. They are a set of technical and consequential amendments relating to Part 1 of the Bill. Amendment 7 allows regulations relating to local reviews of serious cases of harm and abuse that would otherwise be made under the negative scrutiny procedure to be made under the affirmative procedure. This will allow the Government to bring forward regulations relating to both local and national reviews for the House’s scrutiny in a single instrument, ensuring greater coherence and making best use of the House’s time. The other amendments create a new schedule to the Bill, which comprises changes necessary to existing legislation as a consequence of the substantive changes we have debated on the Bill.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward this welcome amendment—Amendment 2. It follows an amendment I tabled in Committee and on Report, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and my noble friend Lady Hodgson put their names. I am grateful to them for their enthusiastic support and for speaking so eloquently in the various debates. I tabled that amendment because it would remedy a serious omission in the list of the areas of support that local authorities are required to include in their local offer.
Recently, North Tyneside Council rallied staff across the authority to improve the employment outcomes of care leavers. Experience taught the council that it would need to be very intentional about ensuring that young people have at least one strong relationship with someone who genuinely and obviously thinks they matter. The council also knew that it would have to help them be part of a supportive network. This emphasis had to be explicitly stated if it was to become embedded in everyone’s practice.
There is a dynamic to this: it is not simply a case of providing young people with an adult who will keep in touch with them and to whom they can turn. Young people need to know how to maintain and grow relationships and how to work through conflict and avoid destructive feuds. Disruptions in attachment processes often lead to an understandable but ultimately vicious circle of an “I’ll reject them before they reject me” pattern of behaviour. Many long for independence far earlier than they can handle it because they do not want to be let down again. Furthermore, our individualistic culture seems to endorse the natural inclination to go it alone and avoid hurt. Not having relationships to draw on can also result in these young people being unbearably lonely, which can have severely negative effects on their health and well-being. It can undermine their education, their ability to maintain a tenancy or other accommodation and manage work, and their financial security. If they do not understand bills, they can easily get into arrears and debt, which can be quite terrifying. Such life skills often develop through a process of guided mastery—encouragement and guidance from someone who is genuinely concerned about them.
In summary, healthy and supportive relationships are fundamental to the other five areas included in the local offer. The Government’s amendment has the potential to tackle the haphazardness of current arrangements which mean that it is not automatic, and is probably highly unlikely, that young people will receive help and advice in the area of relationships.
Given the careful attention that the Minister and his team paid to this matter, I hope that this amendment is a portent of a more relational approach in many other areas of policy. Given the enthusiastic support from across the House that this amendment has received, I am sure that many other noble Lords would agree.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his work and persistence in this area. I recall a 28 year-old woman with experience of the care system who recently married a lovely man, an accountant. She had had the most terrible start in life and never met her father until she was 16. She talked in public about her experience at university and the relationships she had with the women with whom she shared a house while at university, who visited her and comforted her when she often fell into depression and withdrew to her room and isolated herself. I commend the noble Lord for his perseverance on this matter. I am very grateful to the Minister for listening to him and bringing forward this amendment today.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I welcome and support this government amendment. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for pursuing this matter so very vigorously in Committee and on Report. “Relationships” is just one word but in my view it makes such a difference. If this amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will enrich the Bill and make an immense difference to the lives of troubled children entering and leaving care respectively, if the measure is implemented in the way so many of us have argued for. It sends an important message to local authorities, professionals, social workers and others about the importance of relationships in children’s lives and what an important part of their practice it is.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I too welcome the amendment. The local offer for care leavers and the corporate parenting principles are two of the most valuable aspects of the Bill to emerge. Of course, they were originally in the Bill and we have sought to improve them. The inclusion of the term “relationships” is certainly one of those improvements. I will add just one thing to what the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said. The question of relationships is not just about having someone to whom the child or young person can relate but about having the ability and the knowledge to build relationships in his or her adult life so that, we hope, that can confirm stable relationships for them and their own children. I support Amendment 2 and the somewhat impenetrable Amendment 12, which is consequential, and the other consequential amendments which the Minister has put forward in his name.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for driving this point so forcefully and to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for their positive contributions to today’s debate. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for speaking on this important issue on Report. I am pleased to have been able to respond positively to them and I hope noble Lords will welcome and accept the amendment.
“Chapter 1: consequential amendments
Schedule (Part 1 of this Act: consequential amendments) contains amendments consequential on this Chapter.”
“Regulations under provisions inserted by sections 12, 15 and 16
In section 66(3) of the Children Act 2004 (regulations subject to affirmative procedure), after “12B(1)(b)” insert “, 16B (whether alone or with regulations under section 16F), 16E(3)”.”
“Chapter 2: consequential amendments
Schedule (Part 1 of this Act: consequential amendments) contains amendments consequential on this Chapter.”
Lord Woolf
“Duty to have due regard to United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions relating to safeguarding and the welfare of children, have due regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.(2) For the purposes of this section—“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and“United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” has the same meaning as in section 2A(2) of the Children Act 2004.”
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, in addressing the House on Amendment 10, I disclose my interests as president of the Weidenfeld Fund, which focuses on bringing children of Christian faith to this country using resources provided by Jewish members of the community here. I also refer to my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recommended the amendment we are considering.
On Report, the focus was on a similar amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who also supports this amendment. She was supported by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. That amendment was not moved and is not being pursued today. Amendment 10 makes it clear that all it requires is that when public bodies perform their functions, the authorities have to take into account the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In opposing both amendments on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, displayed his customary eloquence in his enthusiasm for the United Nations convention. He said:
“Since the summer, the Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the UNCRC through a Written Ministerial Statement from the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families. This reinforced our view that to achieve implementation of the UNCRC, every department across Westminster must be proactive in considering children’s rights in policy-making”.
I agree, and the objective of the amendment is to ensure that that happens. The Minister referred to a letter from the Permanent Secretary to his counterparts across government, challenging them and all their officials,
“to keep the principles and conventions of the UNCRC at the centre of their policy-making and implementation, and to engage children and young people in the process”.
He also referred to talking to the Children’s Commissioner,
“about how she might hold government to account in this respect”.
He expressed gratitude to noble Lords for tabling the amendments to which I have referred, and indicated:
“There are a number of additional steps we could consider, and we are keen to explore the benefits of the different potential approaches before deciding what further action might be taken”.—[Official Report, 8/11/16; col. 1089.]
Having regard to those remarks, I suggest that it is surprising that the Government are not welcoming this amendment enthusiastically and with open arms. It would place a minimum responsibility on the Government and require them to do no more than have,
“regard to the United Nations convention”.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and very much regret that the Government have failed in their promise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that action would be initiated across Whitehall before this Third Reading to consult on how the public duty to have regard to the UNCRC, which is what our amendment asks for, would affect the work of government and the well-being of children. We were promised that that work would start, with particular regard to the possibility of introducing either the Scottish or Welsh model of protecting children’s rights, before today. As far as we have been informed, it has not. That is why we are justified in bringing this amendment back at Third Reading. We still need clarification on whether and when the Government intend to keep that promise and how Parliament will be informed of their progress.
When in doubt, I always return to the convention itself. It may be informative to remind your Lordships of what we have been bound by the convention to do for the past 25 years. Article 4, on the protection of rights, states that the Government,
“shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources”.
That is not unreasonable. Article 20 states:
“A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment”—
the children we are talking about in the Bill—
“or in whose … best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State”.
That is another very relevant article. We feel it is very important to the scope of the Bill to put a duty into primary legislation to ensure the delivery of these rights.
In Scotland they have a very specific procedure, which I have read, to make sure there are impact assessments at every level to ensure that these rights are delivered. We have not got that in England yet. That is why the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report in June this year, in general comment number 9, recommended that we:
“(a) Introduce a statutory obligation at national and devolved levels to systematically conduct a child rights impact assessment when developing laws and policies affecting children, including in international development cooperation”,
and,
“(b) Publish the results”.
As to its general comment number 14 in its 2013 report on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, the committee recommended this year that we should, first, ensure that this right is appropriately integrated and consistently interpreted and applied in all legislative, administrative and judicial proceedings and decisions as well as in all policies, programmes and projects that are relevant to and have an impact on children; and, secondly, develop procedures and criteria to provide guidance to all relevant persons, and so on.
The case is made by the convention under the UN committee for our amendment. We signed up to that convention 25 years ago and, although we have made some progress, there is a great deal further to go, especially in relation to children who are particularly vulnerable because they are in care or have recently left care.
If the Government will not accept this amendment and insist on pursuing a non-legislative approach to children’s rights, will the Minister commit to introducing a child rights framework across government and assure us that the impact of such a framework will have the same effect as the due regard duty?
Three hours ago I received a short statement—one paragraph—from the Minister, Edward Timpson, referring to his commitment to the convention. It says:
“The possibility of extending this to legislation is still under review. No decisions have been taken about this and officials are continuing to explore the pros and cons”.
He went a little further in a letter to Harriet Harman—a copy of which I have received and which has been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—and said:
“We are now planning a programme of action which will build awareness and lead to greater consistency in the way in which children’s voices and views are heard, and policy developed across Whitehall”.
Will the Minister set out how and, importantly, when this framework will be introduced to ensure that children’s rights are not kicked into the long grass once the opportunity presented by this Bill has passed? I hope the Minister can give this specific information about the Government’s actions and plans.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly support the amendment. I declare an interest—I am half English and half Scottish. The Scottish half of me is delighted and proud that this is on record in the legislation of Scotland. I am unhappy—I have an internal conflict—in the English half that we have not yet reached that point of enlightenment. I would like that internal conflict reconciled as quickly as possible.
However, there are other issues of a more profound nature. In this House, of all places, we take the rights and interests of children extremely seriously. Many noble Lords are personally caught up in work associated with the well-being of children. Any convention, of itself, cannot provide what is necessary, which is an operational and real culture that self-evidently demonstrates at every level of society and in all its actions that children have the rights and priority needs to which the convention refers. The convention is there to underpin what should be a culture. Of itself, the convention cannot be a substitute for the culture. It provides an important underpinning of the culture and is a strong ally of those who want to build up that culture, rather than having it as an additional burden to be taken into account by people who are doing their job. It should be central to their work and it is well expressed in the convention.
There is another reason that motivates me to speak to the amendment. I find it reassuring that we have repeatedly been told that in the context of Brexit the British Government are determined that we should continue to be an international player in the world’s society. Everyone knows that Britain played an active and imaginative part in ensuring that the convention came about. Our credibility in international affairs lies not just with the rhetoric that is undertaken at the diplomatic level on these matters, but in the degree to which what is achieved in those diplomatic circles is reflected in action and commitment in our society as a whole. We undermine our role in international affairs if we become a sort of representative of the speakeasy club where people say nice things and make nice conventions but do not do anything about them in terms of their implementation.
I am not suggesting that we do not do anything because that would be ridiculous. A great deal of good work goes on in government circles. However, the amendment is extremely helpful and pertinent, and I can only say to the Minister that looking at it from the point of view of those outside the Government, if they do not endorse the convention when it has been incorporated in, for example, Scottish law, it is inevitable that there will be a suspicion that for some reason they find it difficult to do and about which they have reservations in terms of the challenges we face. If that is the case we ought to have it out in the open, but I hope that it is not. I therefore hope that the Minister can meet the spirit of what is being argued for in this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said. One other way of looking at the convention is that it acts as a useful nudge for people to remember what it is that they ought to have in mind.
The year 1989 was extremely important because not only did we pass the Children Act, it also saw the United Nations convention. It is extraordinary that for some reason this country, England, is lagging behind Scotland and Wales which have managed to put it into their primary legislation while we are failing to do so. When I was a judge I tried a great many family cases. Whenever I heard a case relating to children, of course I took the United Nations convention into account, and I always thought it rather odd that there I was, applying the statutory law of the Children Act and going outside it to apply the United Nations convention that for some reason the Parliament of our country was not prepared to pass as part of English law. Here we are, all this time later in 2016 and we have fallen behind the smaller parts of this wonderful United Kingdom. It really is about time that we caught up and I find it extraordinary that the Government are not welcoming this with open arms.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and the arguments that have been put so far. I will not repeat what I said on Report but I did raise two questions that I did not feel were answered. I asked the Minister to spell out what further evidence, beyond the evidence we have from the experience of Scotland and Wales which we have heard a little about today, the Government need to convince them of the practical value of such a duty. They have been arguing that they do not see what the practical value is. I also asked what evidence they had that it would produce box-ticking rather than cultural change. What the Minister did say was quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, earlier and I shall repeat it:
“We believe that the way to promote children’s rights is for strong practitioners locally to listen to children and to act in ways which best meet their needs. A duty alone will not do that, and risks practitioners focusing on the wording of the legislation rather than on practice”.—[Official Report, 8/11/16; col. 1089.]
Of course a duty alone will not do that, but surely practice underpinned by a duty is more likely to be good practice than practice that is not underpinned by a duty. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, I am surprised and disappointed that the Government are so resistant to what is, as he put it, such a minimal responsibility that will be placed on them. As we said, it sends out all the wrong messages as to this Government’s commitment to the UN convention.
It is good to hear that the Government have said they are still considering this issue. Given they know that there is so much support in this place it is a shame they have taken their time considering it, but can we have a commitment that when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, a clear statement will be made by the Minister there as to what will be done to reflect the very strong views expressed in this House and which I am pretty sure will be expressed in the other place also?
Lord Warner
My Lords, I, too, strongly support the amendment, but as a sceptical old Whitehall warrior, I will open up an issue that may suggest it is not the Minister and his colleagues in his department who might be the villains in this area, but other interests across Whitehall. As I understand it, if the Government accept the amendment they will then have to accept amendments relating to all the other services that are of concern to children. It would be very difficult for them to accept the amendment if they have reservations about the cumulative effect of implementing the convention in this way through statute for all the services that may affect children.
My suspicion about Whitehall, because I am of a suspicious nature given my background, is that there are problems around an impact assessment on what the implications of all this may be. Instinctively I feel that somewhere in this mix are our old friends at the Treasury and the control of public expenditure. They are often to be found when we have these long periods of inaction in any particular area. Some of the areas where children could be seriously affected—clean air, benefits and access to health services to name but a few—go much wider than the scope of the Bill.
I do not expect the Minister to divulge the workings of government, but can he throw any light on whether it is necessary to provide across Whitehall an impact assessment on what the costs of implementing this through statute would be? Do the processes by which these things have to be agreed across Whitehall have any chance of being agreed before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament?
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I support everything that has been said and pick up on the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. It is very sad that the last two reports of the UN committee coming to this country have started with the words that they regret that so little has been done to implement the recommendations they made five years earlier. If, as my noble and learned friend has suggested, the convention or the causes should be made the centrepiece of cross-government action in this area, then there is a solid basis for all affected ministries in Whitehall to rally round and make certain that their contribution to what is required is not criticised the next time the committee visits.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I do not think that we should worry too much about my noble friend Lord Warner’s point, to which I shall return—the Cross Benches are not always at one on these matters. I have not spoken on this Bill before, but felt I had to intervene because in 1989 I was with Save the Children and remember the excitement at the convention and the Children Act that followed it. Save the Children was already translating those duties into its own policies and activities and it must be horrified that they have not been extended into all government services. We have already heard evidence from CRAE—the Children’s Rights Alliance for England—and UNICEF that statutory child rights duties have a real impact on children’s lives. Perhaps I may quote just one sentence from its briefing, which states:
“A child rights framework such as would be created by this amendment will embed the CRC in children’s services and within other public authorities working with children and families no matter where they are, and enable public authorities to better safeguard, support, promote and plan for the rights and welfare of children in their area”.
My noble and learned friend said that the amendment would place a minimal responsibility on government. Surely we are convinced by that and not by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, the noble Baroness cited articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. One article which is very important to me is Article 39, which sets out the right for children who have suffered trauma, whether through war or through family abuse, to receive therapy and all the support needed to recover from such trauma. That article speaks directly to the amendment tabled earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. If this amendment had been incorporated into legislation 10 years ago, perhaps we would not now be discussing how we have ignored the mental health of looked-after children during the past 10 years. We would have respected the UNCRC and already delivered the services. I am grateful for the sympathetic message that the Minister of State for Children, Edward Timpson, has given the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, as the House will know, we on these Benches have given our support on this important issue both in Committee and on Report. We strongly agree with the principle that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be incorporated into statute. We support the call for this from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, and agree with the strong case put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and other noble Lords today and at previous stages. We fully understand why the amendment has been put forward today.
However, we do not support the case for incorporating the amendment at this late stage in the Bill. Instead, we would prefer discussions and work to continue through to the Commons stages. Noble Lords have heard from Ministers during debate on the Bill that the Government are committed to the UNCRC and are working on their response to last year’s UN committee report on the rights of the child and on addressing the serious concerns raised by it.
We understand that they have also said that they are “sympathetic” to the Scottish model of legislation, placing a duty on Ministers to report on impact and improvements to children’s rights, and have begun discussions with both the Scottish and Wales devolved Governments on their experience of how the different models of legislation recently adopted in their respective countries are operating. They are also having discussions with the Children’s Commissioner and have underlined to government departments across Whitehall and to local authorities and other public bodies that consideration of children’s rights should be at the centre of policy-making and implementation.
However, we do not have from the Government a comprehensive and clear plan and programme of how this work is being brought together into a coherent, proactive strategy for addressing the UN committee report’s concerns and for taking this work forward. The Government urgently need to commit to this, with clear proposals and timescales, particularly for evaluating how the Scottish and Wales models are working and for full consultation with local authorities and other public bodies on how they might implement the “have regard” or the “reporting” duties. Obviously, ongoing dialogue with UNICEF and CRAE is vital, as is discussion on the legal issues and implications underlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
The Government cannot just keep referring to the need to avoid bureaucracy and tick-box assessments—we all want to do that, and we do want that sort of approach from the Government in how they respond to the UN committee. What we need instead is a strategy that will achieve consistency and action across government and local authorities and address the huge variation across the country in how outcomes and impact on children’s rights are currently assessed.
There is already strong evidence that the measures taken in both Scotland and Wales are having a meaningful and practical effect on children’s lives. We know that this is how the change in mindsets and culture that we all want can be brought about. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government plan to take this work forward in the light of today’s discussion on the amendment so that progress can be made before the Bill commences its Commons stages.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for this amendment and for raising this important matter of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am also grateful for the contributions to today’s debate from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Wheeler, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Earls, Lord Sandwich and Lord Listowel, and the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Judd. We had a helpful discussion of the issue on Report, and today’s discussion has been helpful as well. There is a lot of common ground between us though perhaps we take different approaches over what needs to happen next and what could have the most impact in changing culture and behaviour and improving the way we consider children’s rights in policy-making.
Let me start by again emphasising the Government’s commitment to children’s rights. No one questions the importance of the UNCRC and we are fully committed to giving due consideration to the articles when making new policies and legislation. We are equally determined to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children. Nothing could be more important.
As noble Lords are aware, this commitment is already enshrined in existing legislation and statutory duties. The Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 set out a range of duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Specifically, Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 places duties on a range of organisations including local authorities, the police, health services and a variety of other agencies to ensure their functions and any services that they contract out to others are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In 2013, we issued statutory guidance to directors of children’s services which requires them to have regard to the general principles of the UNCRC and ensure that children and young people are involved in the development and delivery of local services.
In addition to legislation, a range of monitoring practices is also in place. Through the single inspection framework, Ofsted assesses the experiences of children and young people, tests the thresholds for providing help, care and protection, and evaluates the quality of this support. This reporting process is independent. Forcing local leaders to produce similar five-yearly reports is unlikely to offer the same level of scrutiny. Of course, we should not forget the role of the Children’s Commissioner. The Children and Families Act 2014 gave the Children’s Commissioner the explicit function of promoting and protecting the rights of children, having particular regard to the UNCRC and making sure their best interests are brought to the attention of decision-makers, both locally and nationally.
However, we would fully accept that there is more to do to embed the UNCRC in policy and practice. Across the UK, there are differing approaches to securing ministerial commitment to the UNCRC. Scotland and Wales have both gone down the route of putting a duty on their Ministers in regard to children’s rights and the UNCRC. In Westminster, our prime objective is to bring about sustained change to the culture that does more than force officials and practitioners to take greater account of the UNCRC—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to this. We want policymakers and others to see the value of the UNCRC in their everyday work. Only last month, Minister Timpson spoke at a parliamentary event and—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, mentioned—laid a Written Ministerial Statement reinforcing the message that, to achieve implementation of the UNCRC, every department across Westminster must be proactive in considering children’s rights in policy-making. As the noble and learned Lord also mentioned, the DfE Permanent Secretary, Jonathan Slater, wrote to his counterparts across government, challenging them to keep the convention at the heart of their policy-making and implementation, and to engage children and young people in the process.
We are determined to follow this through with a number of measures designed to embed children’s rights across Whitehall and beyond. These include introducing a programme to raise awareness of UNCRC among civil servants, with an understanding of what it means to have regard to the articles when carrying out public duties in relation to children. The programme will include a new core learning and development offer through Civil Service Learning, and an offer through the policy profession led by the director-general for children’s services and the chief social worker. This work will begin in January 2017 with the learning and development offer in place within six months. This goes further than we have gone previously in making training an integral part of Civil Service development. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, believed that we had promised to start this earlier. I understand that we committed to look at all the options, including the models adopted by the devolved Administrations. We have had information from Scotland and Wales and are considering it. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured by my statement that we will start this programme in January.
We also have a commitment to work with the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its plans to develop a template for child rights impact assessments and on any associated guidance and good practice. We will host a round table in January next year with a range of stakeholders, including UNICEF and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, to explore how we can develop a framework for this work. We will make sure there is input from those with experience and expertise who can support us to change behaviour and culture and promote children’s rights in policy-making at both local and national level. We will work with UNICEF and others to spread best practice from local authorities which have a good track record in promoting children’s rights and articulate the principles and values associated with that practice. At the next review of the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children, we will consider how the underpinning principles can be strengthened to reflect children’s rights, and we will, of course, continue to discuss and review progress with relevant non-governmental organisations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about evidence. As part of our consideration of implementation of the duties in Wales and Scotland, we will be considering the impact on children of policy-making. We know that UNICEF and others have some rich evidence, and we have asked them to provide it to us for further consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked about impact assessments. There is already a strong recommendation within the Cabinet Office guidance to carry out impact assessments for new legislation.
I hope this reassures noble Lords of our wholehearted commitment to children’s rights. We will continue to observe and assess the results of the various approaches to implementing the UNCRC and will be very pleased to involve noble Lords who wish to be involved in that ongoing work. I appreciate the arguments that noble Lords have used to support the amendment, but I hope that our firm commitment to the UNCRC and our plans further to promote and embed it will convince the noble and learned Lord that his amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Woolf
I thank the Minister for that response and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, whose support I found essential during earlier events, especially when visiting Ministers about this matter. I pay particular attention to what the Minister said. As he spoke, I was very much reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the importance of the convention underpinning what the Government are doing, which we applaud. Does the Minister still not think that instead of underpinning the convention he might be undermining it unintentionally? I hope he will take that thought away and that by the time the matter arrives in the other place the Government will have had a rethink on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review by independent person
(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent person to—(a) review the operation of this Part during the review period, and(b) send a report to the Secretary of State on the findings of the review.(2) In carrying out the review the independent person must consult representatives of social workers in England and anyone else that the person considers appropriate.(3) On receiving the report the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.(4) The Secretary of State must also lay before Parliament a response to the report.(5) The review period is 5 years beginning with the day on which section 33(1) comes fully into force.”
Lord Nash
My Lords, during our debate on Report, I signalled my commitment to table an amendment that ensures that an independent review of the provisions in Part 2 takes place. Amendment 11 meets that commitment. On Report, noble Lords spoke of the need to ensure that these provisions remain fit for purpose. I agree—in fact I believe I astonished the noble Lord, Lord Warner, with that agreement—that it is crucial that these provisions bring about the reforms that are needed and that they remain fit for purpose.
This amendment ensures that an independent review is undertaken within five years from the point that Social Work England becomes fully operational. The review will be able to cover all aspects of Part 2 of the Bill. Those undertaking the review must consult with representatives of the social work profession and anyone else that they consider appropriate. Following the review and discussions with Members in the other place and noble Lords, the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Health will be required to publish a response to the review.
As noble Lords are aware, to ensure the effective operation of Social Work England and that robust independent oversight measures are in place, the Professional Standards Authority will undertake independent reviews on how Social Work England discharges its functions. This new amendment further strengthens the independent scrutiny of Social Work England.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I have recovered from my astonishment at the Minister’s concession on Report. I am delighted to support this amendment, which is far more elegant than the one that I produced.
While am on my feet, I thank the Minister for all his efforts throughout the passage of the Bill and for the constructive way in which he has approached what has sometimes been a robust approach from some quarters of the House to some of his proposals. That has always been done in a thoughtful way, and I am grateful to him, to Edward Timpson and to his officials for the way that they have approached the Bill and the amendments we have proposed.
Before I sit down, in listening to the debates on the importance of personal relationships, it occurred to me that he might draw the importance of personal relationships to the attention of those Ministers who are interacting with their counterparts in Europe because there could be some useful lessons to be learnt from the debates in this particular House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think I will follow that comment.
If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was astonished, I was certainly very pleased with the way in which the Minister acknowledged on Report that this is an important issue. I welcome the amendment. I take the opportunity of thanking the Minister, the honourable Edward Timpson in the other place and officials in both the Minister’s department and the Department of Health for the tremendous amount of work they have done in response to the issues raised. We are very satisfied with the outcome.
Lord Nash
My Lords, we are all aware that social workers play a critical role in our society. It is in order to protect the public that we need a strong bespoke regulator committed to the social work profession. With noble Lords’ assistance and engagement, I am confident that we have arrived at a strengthened position and an improved model for the new regulator.
I believe the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill will lead to the establishment of an effective and successful bespoke regulator for social workers, with appropriate independence from government and clear oversight from the Professional Standards Authority. It is right, though, that these provisions be reviewed, and this amendment will ensure that that happens. I therefore hope noble Lords are able to accept this amendment. I am pleased that we are able to finish on such a positive note.
Before I sit down, I take this opportunity to say a few words of thanks to the House. Your Lordships’ House has been unwavering in the rigour and attention to detail that it has brought to bear as we have debated the Bill. I know that on occasion there has not been as much time as noble Lords would have liked to consider the provisions of the Bill before they have been debated, and I know that I have made further demands on noble Lords’ time through meetings, briefings, letters and policy statements. I can only apologise and say how grateful I am for the efforts that have been taken to bring the House’s expertise fully to bear on these matters.
I also thank my ministerial colleagues, particularly of course the Secretary of State and the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, who will now be taking the Bill on its next steps. I join noble Lords today in thanking officials, and I shall certainly take back their kind words to everyone involved in the department. In closing, I note the co-operative approach that has been taken on all sides and thank the House again for its constant efforts to find common ground in the best interests of all our country’s children.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I, too, should like to say a few words about the Bill, as it proceeds to another place. First, I record the thanks of these Benches for the advice and support supplied by the clerks and the Public Bill Office. It is not often that a Lords starter Bill moves down the Corridor containing such a plethora of changes from the form in which it was introduced to your Lordships’ House six months ago. To some extent, that is a reflection of the form in which it was received—which, noble Lords may recall, prompted Labour to take the unusual step of submitting an amendment on Second Reading regretting that Part 2 was bereft of detail, a fact drawing criticism from both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, before the Minister finally resumes his seat, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to him for his consultation. For instance, there was a meeting yesterday with Damian Hinds, the Minister of State for Employment, about our concerns about sanctions for care leavers. Make no mistake: the Bill will make a difference on the ground for young people with the worst start in life. For that, I am very grateful to the Government, the Minister and his officials and colleagues.
“SCHEDULEPART 1 OF THIS ACT: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTSPART 1AMENDMENTS RELATING TO CHAPTER 1Local offer for care leavers
1 In Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (social services functions of local authorities), in the table, at the appropriate place insert—
“Children and Social Work Act 2016 | |
Section 2 | Local offer for care leavers.” |
5 In paragraph 1(1)(g) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (kinds of support for which certain people are ineligible), after “23C,” insert “23CZB,”.6 In section 83A(5)(a) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (apprenticeship offer: application to persons provided with support under Children Act 1989)—(a) for “21” substitute “25”;(b) after “23C” insert “or 23CZB”.PART 2AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ABOLITION OF LOCAL SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARDS7 In Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (social services functions of local authorities), in the entry relating to the Children Act 2004—(a) for “13 to 16” substitute “16A to 16Q”;(b) omit “targets for”;(c) omit “, and to Local Safeguarding Children Boards”.8 (1) Section 83 of the Children Act 1989 (research and returns of information) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (aa), for “of Local Safeguarding Children Boards;” substitute “of—(i) the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel;(ii) safeguarding partners (within the meaning given by section 16E(3) of the Children Act 2004) in relation to local authority areas in England;(iii) child death review partners (within the meaning given by section 16Q(2) of the Children Act 2004) in relation to local authority areas in England;”.(3) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (aa).(4) In subsection (3) omit paragraph (c) (and the “and” before it).9 (1) Section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (supply of information concerning deaths of children) is amended as follows.(2) In subsections (2) and (4), for “appropriate Board” substitute “appropriate authority”.(3) In subsection (5), for “Subsection (6) applies” substitute “Subsections (5A) and (6) apply”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Where the registrar’s sub-district is in England, the registrar must, before the end of the required period, secure that the appropriate authority is notified—(a) of the issuing of the certificate; and(b) of the registrar’s belief and the grounds for it.”(5) In subsection (6)—(a) at the beginning insert “Where the registrar’s sub-district is in Wales,”;(b) omit “Local Safeguarding Children Board in England or”.(6) In subsection (7)(c), for “subsection” substitute “subsections (5A) and”.(7) After subsection (8) insert—“(8A) The child death review partners for each local authority area in England must—(a) make arrangements for the receipt by them of notifications under this section; and(b) publish those arrangements.”(8) In subsection (9) omit “Each Local Safeguarding Children Board in England and”. (9) Subsection (10) is amended as follows.(10) In the definition of “the appropriate Board”—(a) for “Board” substitute “authority”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “the Local Safeguarding Children Board in England in whose area” substitute “in relation to a register kept for a sub-district in England, the child death review partners for the local authority area within which”;(c) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert “in relation to a register kept for a sub-district in Wales,”.(11) At the appropriate place insert—““child death review partners” has the meaning given by section 16Q(2) of the Children Act 2004;”.(12) Omit the definition of “Local Safeguarding Children Board in England”.”
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Wednesday 23rd November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2017 View all Bus Services Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 67-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 65KB) - (22 Nov 2016)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
( ) the Competition and Markets Authority.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has tabled a number of amendments that aim to restrict the ability of the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate franchising schemes for a period of two years unless it has received a complaint, or has become aware of a significant adverse effect on competition.
Let me start with government Amendment 1. As noble Lords will recall, the Competition and Markets Authority issued a letter on the Bill on 29 June which contained nine recommendations. Our response to these recommendations was issued on 10 October and is now on the GOV.UK website. One of these recommendations was for the CMA to be listed as a statutory consultee in relation to consulting on franchising proposals. The Government accepted this recommendation and tabled Amendment 1.
The CMA is already a statutory consultee in relation to advanced quality partnership, advanced ticketing and enhanced partnership schemes. I take the view that it would be helpful for franchising authorities to engage with the CMA as they develop their proposals. This should help ensure that the authority developing its franchising proposals is made aware of any potential effects on competition, and the benefits or impacts this could have for bus operators and local people.
I now turn to Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. As I mentioned on Report, the CMA will not have any specific powers to block bus franchising schemes. However, it is important to remember that their role is to conduct market studies and investigations in markets where there may be competition and consumer problems, with the aim of improving the situation for passengers. We believe that any restriction of the powers available to the CMA would send the wrong message about its important role in protecting consumers. As such, I urge the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
In addition, as the noble Lord may be aware, Schedule 10 to the Transport Act 2000, which the noble Lord seeks to amend, does not give the CMA the power to investigate franchising schemes. The schedule provides a competition framework in which partnership schemes should operate. As such, the noble Lord’s amendment does not appear in the relevant section of the Bill.
I hope that this explanation and the assurances I have given—we have met in this regard as well—have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I know he recognises the important role that the CMA has to play, and that local authorities should look to work with it as proposals are developed to ensure local bus passengers get the best possible services. However, I do not feel that the amendments are necessary as the CMA is not being given any specific powers to block bus franchising schemes. I trust that has reassured the noble Lord to the extent that he is minded not to press his amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for what I regard as a minimal response to the inquiries I have made. The Competition and Markets Authority seeks to interfere in the proper conduct of business. Can the Minister reflect on the extent to which the authority is working in the public interest or whether it is in the interest of the people employed by the Competition and Markets Authority, to give themselves work? The Minister will be aware of the enormous ongoing inquiry into the Northern Rail franchise, and the effect on Arriva buses. A long time and a lot of expenditure—both public expenditure and that of Arriva—has resulted in a settlement that could probably have been achieved without anything being done by the Competition and Markets Authority. There is very little overlap between the services of Arriva as a bus operator and the services of Arriva as a train operator—and, of course, it won the franchise for a train operation and went ahead without realising that this would be raised. It has been raised and it has cost a lot of money, and a Government who are so anxious to save unnecessary public expenditure should seriously consider what these people are doing.
The future of bus franchises has been covered by what the Minister has said, but when future rail franchises are let—a number are coming along—it would be just as well if the Competition and Markets Authority was, in this case, put into a position where it was a statutory consultee. It should also be told, however, once the franchise had been let and the franchisee is trying to establish services—which takes a long time, because you need rolling stock or buses to run a new franchise—that it should keep out of the way for a time, unless there is a significant public complaint. I am not aware, although I may not be very well informed about it, of a groundswell of opinion in the north of England about the issues that the CMA has raised.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Could the noble Lord assist me? He was forthright in his condemnation of the CMA, although he appears to believe that it has a part to play in rail franchising. I do not want to take noble Lords down that road because I would be out of order in doing so. However, it is a slight contradiction in terms, though no more so than in my own party, which is in favour of franchising for buses but against it for trains. I think that is the right way around, but I am not quite sure; perhaps my noble friends could advise me on that.
To stick strictly to the CMA and the Bill, the CMA made nine eminently sensible recommendations, including the one that, somewhat belatedly, the Minister has now decided to accept. Given the noble Lord’s condemnation of the CMA, which of those recommendations does he feel are unnecessary with regard to the Bill?
Lord Bradshaw
I am perfectly satisfied with what the Minister has said in so far as it concerns bus franchising, but the bus and rail industries are very much linked together. I am trying to bring to his attention the fact that the work of the CMA in the latest case has probably been fruitless. It has been very expensive and, in future, rail franchising should be subject to the same discipline now proposed for bus services. With that, I should like to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
It may be for the convenience of noble Lords if I remind the House that we are debating government Amendment 1, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has been speaking to Amendments 4 and 5, which are grouped with that amendment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing his amendment, which closely mirrors one that I brought forward in Committee what seems like quite a long time ago. The success of the Bill will to a very large extent be determined by the attitude of the Competition and Markets Authority. In its advice to government, it has made it clear that it sees this form of franchising very much as an inferior form of competition compared to on-road competition. That is an attitude I find extraordinary. After all, we do not have on-road bin collection competition, with companies whizzing around fighting over who collects the bins. We accept that, under those circumstances, it is a perfectly rational thing to do—and there is absolutely a case to be made with buses. The problem is with the insistence that it must be the only way, which is likely to prove a hurdle that most local authorities will simply not be able to reach. I am very keen that this amendment should go through, not because it can do anything to halt the CMA but because if it is cited at an early stage and then has a problem, at least it will become clear to the franchising authority very quickly. That authority would not spend a huge amount of money on developing a scheme that is likely to fall foul of the CMA later.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 1, as moved by the Minister, adds the Competition and Markets Authority as a statutory consultee when a combined authority has decided, after receiving the relevant reports, to proceed with a franchising scheme. The issue regarding the Competition and Markets Authority was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in Committee and we should all be grateful to him for his persistence in this matter. He has identified an important issue and concern. It would be most regrettable if, after passing the Bill into law, the bar had been set so high that no authority could ever meet the requirements and be able to establish a franchising scheme to improve services for their residents.
To be clear, in nominating the Competition and Markets Authority as a statutory consultee, the Minister is saying to us that he does not see a situation where a plan for a franchising scheme could run into difficulties with the CMA if it has been worked with and been made aware of the potential effects on competition, and if its concerns have been taken account of. If that is the case, I am very pleased. However, can the Minister confirm in his response one of two things? Is that the view of the Department for Transport alone, or has it spoken to the CMA so that when informing the House of the Government’s position in this respect, he does so with the knowledge and agreement of the CMA? I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for bringing his amendments forward. As I said earlier, he has identified a real problem and his intervention may well avoid all sorts of problems as authorities seek to make use of these powers. I am sure we are all very grateful to him.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lords who have contributed to where we are on this issue. Let me briefly address the issue by assuring noble Lords that when it comes to the passage of the Bill, we will continue to discuss options with bus operators, local authorities and the CMA. We particularly intend in this respect to consult specifically on our proposals for secondary legislation later this year. I am sure that any issues which are still pending or need to be clarified will come up in those discussions. However, the Government have been clear that we have taken it on board that engaging with the CMA at an early stage should assist those local authorities which take forward franchising, to ensure that issues can be addressed at an early stage.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Is the Minister saying that he and his department have talked to the CMA and that it is clear on that as well?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the CMA wrote to us and we responded accordingly to the recommendations that it made.
“Bus safety
(1) An operator of a local service may not participate in any scheme, and an authority or authorities may not approve the participation of an operator as party of any scheme, unless the operator has given a written undertaking to the applicable authority or authorities that—(a) it has subscribed to a confidential safety reporting system that—(i) is suitable for bus operations staff;(ii) can demonstrate it is adequately experienced, resourced and staffed; and(iii) is entirely independent of any bus operators’ control,(b) it has used its best endeavours to ensure that all staff of the operator have been made aware of their right to use this confidential safety reporting system to enable bus operators’ staff to report incidents, unsafe acts, concerns and safety-related issues that they do not feel able to report through normal channels, or where normal reporting channels have not resolved the issue,(c) it will collect and monitor bus casualty data in a manner to be prescribed by the applicable authority or authorities from time to time, and(d) it will make its bus casualty data available to the applicable authority or authorities by way of a report on at least a monthly basis.(2) The authority or authorities must publish on their own website, every quarter, the bus casualty data that they have collected from operators.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was very pleased with the support, sympathetic noises and comments that I had from other Peers when I first tabled this bus safety amendment and I have brought it back at Third Reading, with thanks to the Minister for not disallowing it. The amendment was drafted with the assistance of the Campaign for Better Transport’s “Save our Buses” campaign and benefited from written evidence submitted to the Transport Committee by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, or PACTS. It was largely rewritten by the campaigner Tom Kearney, who has been the victim of a bus crash.
The amendment seeks to do two things. First, it would help with confidential reporting, meaning that bus drivers would have access to a system that has long been happening on the railway and within the air industry. This is called the confidential incident reporting and analysis system, or CIRAS, and it means that bus drivers could report anything about faults or problems that they perceived with their vehicles or their routes.
Secondly, it would allow for the quarterly publication of bus casualty data. When we were on the London Assembly, the Greens persuaded Boris Johnson, when he was London Mayor, to improve operational safety performance monitoring and reporting of TfL’s bus routes by adopting this measure. As a result, confidential safety reporting has been in place in London since 4 January this year. TfL has also made its bus operators’ subscription to CIRAS a precondition for running a bus service contract. These safety practices have made London’s bus system, which is about 25% of the UK’s entire bus fleet, substantially more safety conscious. London also has access to casualty data reporting, which has been in operation for nearly three years, since January 2014. TfL publishes bus safety data every quarter, clearly identifying the bus operator involved, incident location, type of injury, sex and age of the injured party, general cause, mode of transport involved, and borough and month in which it happened.
The importance of confidential safety reporting is shown by the statistics now published by Transport for London. The latest statistics suggest that every TfL bus driver has a 0.2% chance per annum of killing someone; a 63% per annum chance of injuring someone; and a 0.016% chance of sending someone to hospital every single day. Given that safety incidents impose costs and cause delays, one would think that bus operators would be motivated to encourage such reporting by their employees. Surprisingly, even though London’s bus operators have franchises across the UK, only their London franchises are subscribed to CIRAS. While I support the idea of localism, it seems strange to me that London’s bus franchises should have a manifestly better operational safety reporting system than any other locality in the United Kingdom.
In the rail industry, 2015 marked the eighth year in a row with zero rail crash fatalities. This year of course we have had the Croydon tram fatalities. I do not know whether the Croydon tram was operating under CIRAS conditions; I would be interested to know whether it was, if the Minister knows and can tell us. We have acted for many years to prevent rail crashes and deaths, so I fail to understand why we so readily accept crashes, injuries, incidents and deaths on our roads.
As a result of the Minister’s previous comments, I have redrafted this amendment so that the section on confidential safety incident reporting conforms to existing rail standards and CIRAS’s name no longer appears, which would mean that it is not quite so time-limited as it might have been before. I hope that these tweaks will remove the barriers to the Government’s acceptance of this incredibly common-sense proposal. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I cannot recall what position I took on the noble Baroness’s amendment in Committee, but I am not sure that it is one that we should accept. The reason is simply that air crashes and rail crashes are extremely complex events and it is not always clear what has caused an accident. The accidents that the noble Baroness refers to are road traffic accidents where, generally speaking, it is obvious what caused the accident. This is not an amendment that I would support.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I do support this amendment; my noble friend has set out the need for this confidential safety reporting very clearly. I do not accept the comment from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that rail and air accidents are complex and therefore need confidential safety reporting but that road is quite simple—you have an accident and it is quite clear who caused it.
There is also a marine confidential reporting system, which noble Lords may know about. You could argue that you hit something or you hit another ship and it is clear what the cause was, but I think that it is a slightly simplistic argument. We are talking about a confidential reporting system that may include something that is wrong with the equipment—whether ship or aeroplane—that a person is operating. There may be something he or she feels that their employer should have done something about and has not. One likes to think that, with confidential reporting, that could be put right without employees’ putting their jobs at risk. That does not always happen but in other sectors such a provision is an incentive to report issues. I think the systems are exactly the same as between air, road, rail and marine. As my noble friend said, it is interesting to note that confidential reporting has worked well with the railways. Indeed, she has changed the amendment to reflect the situation that operates on the railways.
A few years ago, both the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and I tried to get the Office of Rail and Road, as it is now called, to take responsibility for road safety on the trunk road network and the motorways in the same way as it does for the rail network. We argued that the conditions on the respective networks were much the same. That office had the expertise not just to say, when investigating an accident, that things could be done better, but to go into all the information, statistics and safety rules and bring in one consistent policy, at least for road and rail. I argue that air and marine are slightly different areas but road and rail are very similar land surface forms of transport.
I consider that the confidential reporting mechanism gives comfort to drivers and other staff employed on buses. They are mostly operated by one person, the driver, so we are talking about just drivers. I think that it would also give comfort to passengers. It is evident that most London bus services are extremely good. However, I think that other bus operators sometimes put their drivers under pressure to bend the rules, whether on drivers’ hours, speeding or not looking after their passengers properly. If confidential reporting were in place, people would have the ability to make complaints if they wished to do so. It would also give operators an incentive not to abuse the system and to improve the quality of journeys generally, which is what this whole Bill is about.
My noble friend said that bus operators in London have introduced confidential reporting. That is wonderful but there is no reason why London bus passengers or employees should be treated any differently from those in the rest of the country. Another reason for introducing this Bill is to bring the quality of services in other parts of the country in line with that of the service in London.
This is a good amendment which we have discussed several times at various stages. Frankly, if the Minister rejects it now, I would have to ask him whether the Government consider that bus accidents, bad driving by bus drivers or bad quality of bus services—buses are a form of public transport, as are rail, ferries or air transport—and the necessity of having good-quality, safe bus services are less important for buses than for other forms of transport, perhaps because not so many Members of your Lordships’ House travel by bus as by other forms of transport. I hope that is not the case. However, if the amendment were rejected, that would be my perception. As I say, this is a good amendment and I support it.
Lord Snape
My Lords, having heard the exchanges on both sides, I wish to raise a couple of points with the noble Baroness who moved this amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made a relevant point when he talked about the difference between accidents involving buses and those involving trains and aeroplanes. The Croydon tragedy has just been mentioned. All I will say about that is that three separate inquiries into that tragedy are taking place at present. If a similar number of passengers had been killed by a bus overturning on a bend, there would not be three separate inquiries but an inquest into the deaths. That might go some way to underline my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s point but it also supports the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that we have different procedures. Just because we have different procedures does not mean that we are any less concerned about bus safety.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness who proposed the amendment has the gift of coming up with interesting and appealing ideas, and this is one of them. I think that obviously we are all sympathetic to the issue of safety on buses; some instances recently, even in London, have been a matter of concern. I think also of the cycling situation in London, which is a problem. However, on this occasion I have to agree—they might be surprised to hear this—with the noble Lord, Lord Snape, and my noble friend Lord Attlee. There are problems in this area which are not solved by this rather heavy-handed approach, and there is a difference between the sort of situation you find yourself in with buses on the one hand and with rail on the other. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, made the point that his own party is in favour of franchising when it comes to buses but against it when it comes to railways, so there are clearly differences in the way we approach these two important industries.
As someone who takes an interest in the Bill, I am also concerned that we get it off the ground. People who have followed the bus industry know that previous attempts to get franchising going in the rest of the country failed because of the complexity of the legislation. For example, Newcastle upon Tyne made a big effort to get franchising going but failed after many years of trying because of the complexity of the legislative procedures. I do not want this admirable Bill, which I fully support, to fall foul of the same problems. Let us please keep it as simple as possible. We have made amendments in this House which on the whole have been wise, and which I hope the Government will keep, as they have not been adverse to the spirit of the Bill. This may be music to the ears of my colleagues on the Front Bench: I hope that they do not mess around too much with it in another place. We should keep it where it is. It is a very good Bill. As my wife said the other day, I am a bit of a bus junkie. People are asked whether they travel on buses; I travel on buses all the time in London because they are so good. I want something similar to be available to residents in other parts of the country and I trust that this Bill will achieve that. I strongly support it and I do not want any further amendments to be made to it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the recent tram tragedy should make us all think again about safety in general, and that should apply not just to franchised services but to partnerships and any kind of regular service run with some element of public money and with public support. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the amendment and acknowledge that there is an issue to be considered. I want to make it clear that I believe the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is incorrect in trying to distinguish between different types of accidents—the causes of bus accidents can be just as complex. Speculation since the tram accident has shown us all that perhaps there was a long-term issue that could have been addressed by having a system akin to the one suggested here.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, would it be better not to agree this amendment because of the reasons adduced by my noble friend? At the same time, taking up what the noble Baroness said, there is a growing understanding in society that we have to provide people with the opportunity to report things that worry them in a way that does not endanger their position as, for example, drivers. I do not think that this issue is about buses; it is about the society in which we live. We need to enable people in a complex society to issue warnings so as to increase levels of safety. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will refuse to accept the amendment, which I think would be otiose and rather heavy-handed in this excellent Bill.
I also hope that he will take on board the principle that we should offer people the opportunity to issue warnings whenever we can. If we do not do that, all sorts of things that could be avoided are not avoided. It is becoming less easy to draw a distinction between buses and trains. What do we do with guided bus routes, for example? Are the vehicles classified as trains or buses? We have talked about trams, but the noble Baroness could not tell us whether the same rules operate on trams as operate on buses. We have to recognise that this issue is more complicated than we think, but it is most important that we give people the opportunity to warn in a way that does not imperil their jobs.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I support the approach taken by my noble friend Lady Randerson and I echo the points that have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Right across society we are gaining a better understanding that the first indication that something is wrong in an organisation usually comes from the people who work in it. The importance of a whistleblowing policy is well understood. Surely the purpose of this proposal is not necessarily to look back following an accident but to prevent accidents happening in the first place.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would insert a new clause into the Bill. We discussed this on Report and I am very pleased that it is back here today to be considered further at Third Reading.
As we have heard, the amendment is about safety. A scheme similar to what is proposed here operates in London and in the rail and aviation industries. Schemes for the confidential reporting of incidents are already up and running, contributing to the safety of everyone in those industries and the passengers who make use of those transport services. Therefore, in principle the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and his department should have no reason not to accept the amendment.
We have heard about the number of fatalities and serious injuries that have taken place in the past year in the bus industry, and anything that contributes to a reduction in those figures should be welcomed by everyone. Publishing the information and identifying bad or sloppy practices, or something that is an unintended consequence, means issues can be highlighted and action taken to deal with them, if we have the data necessary to identify the problem.
It is also a well-known fact that just having a system of confidential reporting can do much to improve the safety culture. Amendment 2 is a very positive amendment and I congratulate the noble Baroness for bringing it back again today. I very much hope that she will get a positive response from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, as she is seeking to bring forward a sensible and proportionate measure that is already operating in other transport industries and in the bus industry in London—and all the large bus operators that operate outside the capital also operate in the capital.
Doing everything we can to avoid death and serious injury in an industry that transports millions of people around every day, often on short local journeys, is something we should all want to support. The costs are not great for operators and, as we have seen in London, the system clearly can operate without any great burden to the industry.
In conclusion, the amendment as worded may not be what is needed, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the Government can accept the principle and work with noble Lords in this House and with campaigners to get it right. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we need to enable people to have the ability and opportunity to warn of potential problems. I think that that is very important and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will move forward on that basis.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I first thank all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for proposing an amendment that would prevent bus operators participating in any scheme unless they give a written undertaking to the relevant authority that they will subscribe to a confidential safety reporting system. Operators will also need to provide an undertaking that they will collect and monitor bus casualty data and then provide the relevant authorities with a monthly report.
Several noble Lords have made points about safety. Let me make it clear again that road safety is a matter of national importance—we are all agreed on that. The DVSA in particular plays an important role, with traffic commissioners, in seeking to ensure that drivers and vehicles are both licensed and safe. The department collects and publishes data on reported road accidents, which provide details of the type of vehicle involved and the consequent casualties. I am pleased, but far from complacent, that we saw a fall in the number of accidents involving buses and coaches in 2015 from the previous year. However, we must ensure that we continue to monitor this important area.
Let me turn to the amendment more specifically. As I said on Report, I agree with the sentiment behind this amendment; several noble Lords have also said that this afternoon. An efficient reporting system captures health, safety and security concerns raised by employees, which are then recorded, and this is the first step towards resolving any issues raised—indeed, it addresses the concerns so eloquently put by my noble friend Lord Deben.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging some of the issues raised on Report and for omitting the specific reference to CIRAS. The Government believe that it would not be appropriate to include such a reference in primary legislation. I also thank the noble Baroness for the very productive meeting we had on this issue, together with Mr Kearney. That in itself served as a very informative meeting for the Government. That said, I am conscious that the proposed amendment has come quite late in the passage of the Bill through this House. As several noble Lords acknowledged, the issue was first raised only on Report. The Government, therefore, do not have sufficient time to consider the issue before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House. I therefore cannot accept this amendment today.
That said, and for the reasons that I have explained to the noble Baroness already, we are keen to explore further the issues raised by the amendment. In the spirit of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Deben, we wish to look at this amendment carefully, and it would be appropriate to do so in the other place. This approach would allow us to consider the objectives of the proposed amendment carefully and to explore what the best solution may be to resolve any specific issues.
Let me assure the House that I have listened very carefully to the debate this afternoon and understand the importance of making sure that bus travel is safe for all—we all share that view. I will not be able to accept the amendment today but I anticipate working with the noble Baroness on this matter as the Bill progresses in the other place. I can also assure her that I have already asked my honourable friend Andrew Jones, who is the Bill Minister, to continue the constructive discussions we have had thus far.
With the assurances and the explanation I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his generous reply. Obviously he did not go as far as I would have liked and I hope the House will allow me a little leeway in demolishing—or commenting on—some of the comments that have been made during this debate.
Earl Attlee: complexity. I have never driven a train or a bus but, as a train is taken along tracks with no steering wheel, it could be argued that a bus is more complex to drive and that there are more complex issues on roads. So that is quite a feeble argument.
Lord Snape, I did not quite follow what you were saying but I can assure you that, from an extra burden point of view—if you are talking about a financial burden, for example—if a company has a turnover of up to £1 million, it would cost it £300 to subscribe to the scheme. If its turnover is from £1 billion to £2 billion, it is £12,000. That is not onerous. You might argue that the data collection is onerous—but I would say, “No data, no measurement”. We cannot judge whether a company is safe if we do not have the data to look at. So this is money well spent.
Lord Horam, you talked about my interesting ideas—I think that was a criticism rather than a compliment—and you also called this heavy-handed. I can only say to you that this is tried and tested in London and it works for the majority of bus companies. You talked about London buses being so good, but they are so good partly because they subscribe to this scheme and bus drivers are allowed to comment on their vehicles and the problems they face. I thank the Peers who commented in a positive way and I shall come to the Minister’s comment in a moment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness has done a fabulous job in moving her amendment and has had success in her reply from the Minister—but will she undertake to study the Companion on the use of the word “you”?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I do apologise. I have no idea about that. Perhaps you would like to give me a seminar afterwards.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, questioned whether or not he was consistent between my bringing the amendment last time and now, I can assure the noble Lord that he was completely consistent. He did not like it then and he does not like it now.
I thank the Minister for the productive meeting and it was good to hear that he was sympathetic to the issues. This is a relatively minor change. Other people have called it heavy-handed but it is a minor change. It saves lives. I cannot think of a higher, nobler cause than saving lives—especially those of the people we purport to govern. We are saving lives and preventing injuries and devastation to families—and the numbers we are talking about are not inconsequential. This is a relatively light touch for something that has such heavy consequences. I am of course disappointed that the Government have not snapped up the amendment but I look forward to it being picked up later.
Its impact on society and on the taxpayer is much heavier than we realise. Every crash has a cost—whether it is in delays to business, to the service or to commuters—that we do not assess. When we talk about the cost to industry, we should also think about the cost to the life of the towns, cities and roads where it happens.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
I appreciate the noble Baroness giving way. Does she agree that one of the key duties on any board of directors is the management of health and safety? It is a legal requirement, so it is inconceivable that bus operating companies do not already collect this information. What we are talking about here are two things. The first is the matter of transparency in reporting and the second is the further step that the noble Baroness wants to take in terms of it being a barrier to granting a franchise. But the point about collecting data is that companies will be doing that already because they are legally obliged to do so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for that comment. I actually do not know the answer to that and I will find out.
I hope that the economic impact of deaths and injuries will be taken into account by the Government when they assess the importance of this amendment. Having said all that and feeling only slightly better—I mean bitter—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“( ) Sections 22 to 26 extend to England and Wales and Scotland.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, Clause 17 was inserted on Report and introduces the accessible information requirement. Certain provisions in the clause extend to Scotland whereas the rest of the Bill extends to England and Wales. A further amendment is required to extend the Bill’s general provisions to Scotland; namely, the power to make consequential provision, the power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision, extent, commencement and the Short Title. These general provisions already extend to England and Wales, and this is very much a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for suggesting in a letter today that I should make a momentary intervention on the accessibility of bus services. Noble Lords will remember that I moved an amendment on Report to make bus companies, as a condition of their licence, produce and publish policies to assist disabled people in using their services. The intention of the amendment was to bring buses completely into line with trains. I also offered the Minister an alternative if he rejected my amendment, which was to follow his own model on AVs and introduce a regulation-making power under the Equality Act to require bus companies to make accessibility policies, again enforceable as a condition of their licence. The Minister kindly said that he would reflect on my offer, and true to his word, a week later we had an extremely helpful and constructive meeting to discuss my proposal in more depth. He said that he would revert to me in around a week.
Unfortunately, he was not able to do so until this morning when I received a letter telling me that while he cannot make a firm commitment today, the dialogue will continue. The Minister emphasises in his letter the need for strong guidance as a back-stop that should be developed with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to make bus services more accessible for disabled people. Of course I welcome that, although the Minister knows my views on the deep limitations of guidance incredibly well by now.
I want to express my appreciation to the Minister for his openness and willingness to discuss this issue in depth—and I really mean that. Transport is a lifeline for disabled people as it underpins their inclusion in society. An amendment is not on the table today, although I had hoped it would be, but I am grateful for the offer to work with Andrew Jones MP, the Bill Minister in the other place. I am happy to take up that offer and I thank the Minister for his collaborative approach, which reflects my preferred way of working. As I say, I will definitely take him up on his offer and I have already garnered support from MPs, organisations representing disabled people and disabled people themselves for taking this forward. I hope further discussions in the other place will result in an amendment to enable disabled people to use buses with confidence and with the assistance they need to live independently. At the moment that is not the case, but I believe it can be.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving us his time in meetings, and I thank his officials for their work. We are grateful for the care with which he has considered our amendments and has responded to them, even when he was rejecting them.
We on these Benches support the principles behind the Bill and we are pleased that the Government are attempting to improve bus services. For some 30 years, since the Thatcher Government introduced deregulation, bus services outside London have been a story of decline. In contrast, buses have thrived in London within a much more regulated system. Although franchising may not be the whole answer—indeed, may not be the answer used in much of the country—we believe that partnerships have a much more active role to play for local authorities as well as for bus companies. They mark an important way forward.
Good bus services are an important part of a thriving economy. They are the most frequently used form of public transport and are essential to the mobility of older people, young people and, in particular, those who are less well-off. They are essential to the sustainability of rural communities and for a healthy environment. Air quality is a major issue of public concern, as the Government are painfully aware at this time, so frequent, reliable and reasonably priced bus services are key to discouraging car use. We hope the Bill will improve bus services and I hope our contributions on the issues of emissions, disabled access, youth fares and so on have helped to focus the Minister’s mind and those of his colleagues on ways the Bill needed to be improved and on ways in which a more ambitious approach might future-proof the Bill and make it more robust for the years ahead. I hope our work here in this House has done enough to make it strong enough to succeed in its aims.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, as is customary at this stage in the passage of a Bill, I shall be brief. Obviously the amendment moved by my noble friend the Minister is a good one. As he has said on several occasions, the overall aim of the Bill is to make bus services even better, and I agree with everything just said by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the importance of bus services. There is much to support in the Bill, not least because it will pave the way for even greater partnership working between bus operators and local authorities. I was especially delighted to see the Government amend the Bill to ensure that passengers will have greater access to bus service information. This will make travelling on buses easier and perhaps a less daunting experience not only for those with disabilities, but for everyone.
However, not all the changes we have made were, I believe, so welcome. Giving any and all local authorities access to franchising powers is, in my view, a mistake. It will just serve to introduce uncertainty into the bus market and bus companies will have no incentive to invest. There will be no incentive to buy new vehicles, to keep passengers happy or to react to their needs, which runs counter to the overall aim of the Bill. This House prides itself on being a revising Chamber and it has certainly revised the Bill, so let us see what becomes of it when it reaches the other place. I hope that the next time we see it, the Bill will do what it says on the tin and enable local bus services to flourish and deliver for passengers.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly make a contribution as the Bill comes to the end of its passage in this place. I know the Minister is aware of the importance of the Bill to Greater Manchester. The option to franchise bus services is something that leaders of all political organisations across Greater Manchester have requested as part of the 2014 devolution agreement. It is integral to that agreement’s success.
Bus franchising has the potential to truly transform transport across the city region, allowing Greater Manchester to develop an integrated transport network. I am therefore delighted that we are moving a step forward with the Bill. However, as the Minister is aware, the Greater Manchester mayoral elections in May 2017 are less than six months away. A number of clauses include provisions that allow the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation and guidance.
I would therefore like to make two brief requests to the Minister. First, it will be essential that the regulations and guidance issued are robust and clear in their intent and content so as to limit any delays in implementation. Secondly, the guidance and regulations must be available as soon as practicably possible so that the incoming mayor can make informed decisions on the options available to them. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on those points.
Transport devolution across Greater Manchester has the potential to bring significant benefits for passengers, industry, residents and visitors across the conurbation. Reform of bus services in Greater Manchester is crucial if we are to unlock these benefits and create the excellent integrated transport network the area deserves.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I endorse some of the things that my noble friend said. I too give a qualified welcome to the Bill and to the amendments, in particular those aspects of the Bill that would genuinely improve services for passengers and those clauses that encourage the development of partnership working between operators and local government. Those arrangements have proved to be successful in many parts of the country.
I have misgivings about franchising that I have expressed ad nauseam. The Minister has said time after time that there is no extra money available to local authorities that wish to go down the road of franchising. The Liberal party spokesperson and my Front Bench made the point that franchising has worked extremely well in London. Of course it has. The one aspect of franchising in London that people do not talk about, and which has rarely been mentioned in the Chamber, is money. We have thrown £1 billion at franchising in London. That is the nearest estimate I can come up with. My objection to franchising would be considerably reduced if the Minister stood up and said that he has £1 billion for Manchester—that might please my noble friend Lord Bradley—£1 billion for Birmingham, £1 billion for Tyneside and £1 billion for the other conurbations in this country. We know full well that that will not happen.
At a time when local government’s finances have been considerably cut back time after time, to pursue franchising is a snare and a delusion. To my knowledge this is the third attempt since the 1985 Act to bring some degree of franchising back to local bus services outside London. In my view, it will be as unsuccessful as the previous two for the reasons I have outlined.
It is very rare when we debate bus services that we hear the voice of passengers. We have heard from the Local Government Association. I do not object to democratic organisations seeking more power—that is what democratic organisations do—but I object to the view that these powers can somehow be granted to Manchester, Birmingham and other parts of our great nation without any money to fulfil them. In that way inevitably lies cynicism and disappointment.
A report on bus services in the West Midlands was published as recently as last week by Passenger Focus—an eminently respectable group that I know commands the respect and affection of both sides of your Lordships’ Chamber. Some 82% of passengers using bus services in the West Midlands expressed satisfaction with the services provided. When that 82% was asked whether they had any problems, virtually every single one of them said, “Yes, there is a problem. It’s called congestion. We hate being caught in congestion”. Local authorities have responsibility for alleviating congestion. They do not have the money, of course, as I am the first to acknowledge, but by and large many of them do not have the will to do something about congestion either. If buses ran on time in our major conurbations we would not be having this debate on franchising.
My noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench will talk about the London experience. London is a unique city. It has hundreds of thousands of commuters entering and leaving every day and millions of tourists in the course of a year. With all due respect to Manchester, Birmingham and Tyneside, we do not have millions of tourists; we have thousands of commuters and perhaps thousands of tourists. That is why London was exempted from deregulation in 1985—read Hansard in both Houses of Parliament. That is why franchising was introduced in London rather than in the rest of the country.
Having sat through virtually every debate on the Bill I am in danger of repeating myself, but I do not believe the provisions for franchising will ever be enacted. I can see those provisions being filleted in the other place when the Bill gets there. I have one last sad word to my Front Bench: we seem to pretend that the passage of the 1985 Act was year zero as far as buses were concerned. The decline of bus passengers in our major conurbations started in the 1950s with the spread of the private car. In the 1950s there were 5 million cars on our roads; there are more than 35 million now. It is not surprising that people, having acquired a private car, decide to use it rather than the bus. To pretend this decline started in 1985 with the passage of the Act is a delusion. It did not; it started a long time before that.
If we are to go forward sensibly as far as the provision of bus services is concerned, I believe—I hope I have not boasted, but I have reminded your Lordships that I have had some experience in the bus industry—that partnerships are the way forward. If the Bill leads to greater partnership I wish it a fair wind, but I very much doubt it will return from the other place in the same state as it leaves us.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, I could not let the opportunity of a bus Bill prevent me stating that, in my opinion and that of many people I know who drive in central London, we are constantly impressed by the way that bus drivers are driving in a thoughtful manner. They are difficult, large buses, but they do not act in a way that offends other traffic. I would like this short tribute to be made to them and put on the record.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, as we are on the last amendment at Third Reading, I want to say that I genuinely believe that this is a good Bill. It leaves this House in a better shape than when it arrived. We wish it well as it goes through the Commons. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. He has been courteous, engaging, responsive and willing to listen. I know that I and all other noble Lords are grateful to him for that. I also thank the Bill team, who have been very kind to us, and helpful and supportive. We appreciate very much the work they have done all round the House.
We have made many positive changes to the Bill. I am glad that we said goodbye to Clause 21. I am pleased we have extended further franchising powers to non-mayoral authorities. I am pleased with the additions on audio-visual and environmental protections. I am well aware that the Bill will go to the other place and that one or two issues may come back to us at some point in the new year. We will certainly then want to state our case again and try to persuade the other place, if they are not persuaded already, of the soundness of our proposals.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, those I have agreed with and those I have not agreed with. There have been very positive debates here during the whole course of the Bill. We have generally done a very good job.
I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I knew her for many years before either of us was in this House and we have always worked very well together. I also pay tribute to Hannah Lazell, who works in the opposition office. As my noble friend Lord Watson said in the debate on the previous Bill, we have only a small number of staff and Hannah has worked particularly hard for us throughout the Bill.
This is a good Bill; we have improved it; we wish it well. If it comes back to us in an amended form, I am sure that we will defend our position at that point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Although the amendment is somewhat technical, it has nevertheless served as a pretext for noble Lords to acknowledge the work that has been done in your Lordships’ House on this important Bill. I acknowledge the tribute paid by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes to bus drivers; I am sure that we all echo that. We should perhaps pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that while, unfortunately, a minority receive attention, the majority of bus drivers, as my noble friend so eloquently put it, serve their cause, fulfil their duties and demonstrate the courtesy required of them in ensuring that people reach their destination efficiently, safely and on time. I align myself totally with the remarks of my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has raised the issue relating to Manchester on repeated occasions. I assure him, as I have done before, that we are working closely with local authorities, including Transport for Greater Manchester, to achieve the objectives that he has outlined.
We have reached that time in the Bill when, in acknowledging the comments of other noble Lords, I too wish to thank those Members of your Lordships’ House who have contributed to debates. We have sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed, and sometimes agreed to disagree, but those debates have been lively and always conducted courteously. I am grateful for the time that all noble Lords have given, particularly in meeting me directly on a bilateral basis—it was greatly appreciated. In particular, I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with whom I have worked on various issues in the Bill. He and his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have together led a very able charge from the Labour Benches in what have been robust but positive and proactive discussions. I am equally thankful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her contributions and for the exchanges that we have had. I also thank my noble friend Lord Younger for his support during the passage of the Bill. It would be remiss of me not to mention my very able Bill team, who have had to endure many long hours of review and many requests from me as the Minister. I thank through the Bill manager all the officials at the DfT and in my private office for their support.
On accessibility, I am grateful for the meetings that we have held with noble Lords, many conducted over the summer—sometimes, people perhaps forget that work continues and that was true in the case of this Bill. I am sure that we can all agree that the Bill is in a much stronger place for the inclusion of the accessible information requirement. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I shall continue to reflect on her contributions and acknowledge the constructive way in which she has engaged with the department. I thank her, too, for the comments that she made today. I assure her that my honourable friend Andrew Jones has committed to continuing the productive discussions that we have had thus far. I am equally grateful for the contributions on accessibility of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, who regrettably are not in their places today. Their contributions have also been valuable. I am sure that there will be further discussions on this important issue as the Bill progresses through the House of Commons.
It is fair to say that, for all of our shared belief that buses play a vital if at times underrated role in people’s lives, the passage of the Bill in this place has not been entirely easy. There has been much agreement on it, but there remain areas where this has not been the case. In particular, it remains important that the Bill reflects the Government’s original intent on who has access to franchising powers, for all of the reasons that I have explained—we have had robust debates in that regard. Nevertheless, throughout all stages of the Bill, there has been genuine co-operation and a willingness to work together across all Benches. I assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to work from a perspective of positive engagement, particularly on the issues that I have again highlighted today. We all seek to ensure that the Bill can fulfil its ultimate purpose of delivering improved services for bus passengers.
Wales Bill
Wednesday 23rd November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Wales Act 2017 View all Wales Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 142KB) - (21 Nov 2016)
“PART 2AWELSH TRIBUNALSThe Welsh tribunals
(1) In this Part “Welsh tribunal” means—(a) the Agricultural Land Tribunal for Wales or Tribiwnlys Tir Amaethyddol Cymru;(b) the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales;(c) a rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (including a leasehold valuation tribunal and a residential property tribunal);(d) the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales or Tribiwnlys Anghenion Addysgol Arbennig Cymru;(e) a tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Education Act 2005 (registration of inspectors in Wales: tribunals hearing appeals under section 27);(f) a tribunal drawn from the Adjudication Panel for Wales or Panel Dyfarnu Cymru;(g) the Welsh Language Tribunal or Tribiwnlys y Gymraeg.(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend subsection (1)—(a) so as to remove or revise a paragraph,(b) so as to add or substitute a tribunal whose functions— (i) are exercisable only in relation to Wales, and(ii) do not relate to reserved matters (within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or(c) so as to make amendments (to provisions of this Part or other enactments) that are consequential on an amendment within paragraph (a) or (b).(3) No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council that only makes—(a) provision for the omission of a paragraph in subsection (1) where the tribunal concerned has ceased to exist,(b) provision for the variation of a paragraph in consequence of a change of name or transfer of functions, or(c) amendments within subsection (2)(c).Such an Order in Council is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Assembly.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group demonstrate the pragmatic and progressive approach that the Government are taking in this Bill to the interface between devolved matters and the wider justice system of England and Wales. The amendments are designed to do two things. First, they will create a statutory office of President of Welsh Tribunals to oversee the work of the devolved Welsh tribunals. Secondly, they will allow for the movement of judges between different Welsh tribunals and between reserved Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service tribunals in England and Wales and the devolved Welsh tribunals, to share expertise in a way that cannot happen under current legislation.
These measures are the culmination of discussions with the Welsh Government, the Ministry of Justice and the senior judiciary. Although the clauses and accompanying schedules are fairly lengthy, reflecting some technical but necessary aspects of the provisions, the overriding purpose is simple: to improve the way in which the workload of the devolved Welsh tribunals is managed and to maximise flexibility in the deployment of judicial resources in the Welsh tribunals.
I will deal with the creation of the statutory office of President of Welsh Tribunals before moving on to discuss the flexible deployment measures in more detail. As noble Lords may be aware, there are currently seven devolved tribunals which are the responsibility of the Welsh Government. The full list is set out in Amendment 107C and includes, among others, the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales and the Welsh Language Tribunal.
Each tribunal currently has its own chairperson, but Mr Justice Wyn Williams has undertaken an informal, presidential-style role in respect of the relevant tribunals, acting as a central point of contact for all leadership judges in them. By putting the role of President of Welsh Tribunals on a statutory footing in Amendment 107DA, we acknowledge the important work that Mr Justice Wyn Williams has done, while bringing greater consistency to operations and the provision of pastoral support to the leadership judges in the relevant tribunals. The fact that Mr Justice Wyn Williams has performed this role on an informal basis for some time is perhaps the best indication that there is a need for a permanent statutory position.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have legal duties to increase diversity in the judiciary. For that reason, the Government consider that the selection and appointment process should be as open and transparent as possible.
The new schedule inserted by Amendment 119AA provides for a two-stage process for the appointment of a person to this new statutory role. At the first stage, the Lord Chief Justice can recommend a candidate for appointment. If the person chosen is a current or former judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal, and the Welsh Ministers and the Lord Chancellor agree with his recommendation, the appointment can go ahead. Where those conditions are not met, for example because there were two or more promising candidates, the Lord Chief Justice would be required to ask the Judicial Appointments Commission to recommend somebody for appointment. This is similar to the two-stage process that exists in relation to the Senior President of Tribunals, who carries out a similar role in relation to the First-tier and Upper Tribunals that exercise jurisdiction across England and Wales. If the Judicial Appointments Commission was invited to carry out a recruitment campaign, the new schedule created by Amendment 119AA makes it clear that its guiding principles of selection on merit and promotion of diversity would apply, just as they would in any other campaign carried out in England and Wales.
On flexible cross-deployment, the measures in Amendment 107FA are related specifically to members of the Welsh tribunals being deployed from one Welsh tribunal to another, giving the president greater flexibility in the way judicial resources are managed and the ability to respond effectively to peaks and troughs in the workload of the tribunals. In addition, the Welsh Government agreed with the Lord Chief Justice, the Senior President of Tribunals and the Lord Chancellor that it might be beneficial if judges could move between reserved HMCTS tribunals and the devolved Welsh tribunals, if this were needed to meet urgent business needs. Amendments 107GA and 107H would provide the legal basis for cross-deployment to occur. They would allow judges from the Welsh tribunals to sit in the First-tier Tribunal and for judges from the First-tier and Upper Tribunals to sit in the Welsh tribunals, subject to the agreement of the senior judiciary on both sides. In reality, the Government anticipate that it is more likely that judges would be deployed from HMCTS tribunals into the Welsh tribunals than vice versa, but these amendments would permit movement in either direction. I hope the Committee will agree that both the creation of the office of President of Welsh Tribunals and the measures on cross-deployment are worth while.
There is also an opposition amendment in this group. I look forward to hearing from the Opposition on that and will then respond to the points made. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 108 in my name, which seeks to devolve the youth justice system in Wales. The amendment is perhaps slightly incongruously linked with this bank of amendments before the House.
The ineffective and complex mix of devolved and non-devolved bodies that manage the Welsh youth justice system means that a fragmented approach is the best we can hope to achieve. The argument for the devolution of the youth justice system has been made by many experts in both policy and practice, including former Youth Justice Board chair, Professor Rod Morgan, who noted that it is illogical to have a system where factors linked to youth offending are often related to devolved services, such as education and training, social services and health, while youth offenders are dealt with through non-devolved services such as the police, youth offending teams and youth courts.
My party colleague, North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner Arfon Jones, highlighted how a devolved youth justice system would provide an integrated and coherent children’s policy for Wales. Through a clear devolution settlement, the accountability, opportunities to innovate and the simplification of the way the youth justice system operates in Wales would lead to significant improvements for vulnerable children and young adults.
Understandably, the English youth justice system, on to which elements of the Welsh system continue to be tacked, is concerned with English problems, particularly gangs and urban violence. In Wales, rural issues and poverty underpin the challenges faced. By creating a clean break between the two systems, we could enhance outcomes for children at risk in both nations, allowing policies and practices to be targeted and focused on the issues of greatest importance in both places.
As another party colleague of mine, Liz Saville Roberts, highlighted in the other place, the Howard League for Penal Reform found out about our efforts to devolve youth justice and provided us with the following statement:
“When it comes to Welsh children in trouble with the law, Wales should be able to come up with a Welsh solution to a Welsh concern. This is particularly the case because both social services and education policy are already devolved and it is a welfare-led approach which will prove most effective for troubled children. The Welsh Youth Justice Board already recognise this in their ‘children first’ approach and there is an opportunity to build on that distinctiveness and protect it from any Westminster-led reforms that fail to take into account the specific needs of Welsh children”.
Coming from where it does, that quote ought to carry a lot of weight.
The practical benefits of devolving the youth justice system are clear. It is outlined in the recommendations of the Silk commission, as I am sure the Minister will readily recall. It is exemplified by the fact that it is already devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and it is reinforced by the fact that the Government already said they are looking to devolve aspects of youth justice to areas of England. Can the Minister explain to the people of Wales why establishments such as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority are set to gain increased competence over youth justice but the established National Assembly for Wales, with a track record on closely related issues, is not?
I hope the Minister will listen to the advice of those involved in the sector and either support this amendment or bring forward an amendment on Report that will devolve the remaining aspects of the youth justice system to Wales.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, there is a mass of important material in this substantial group of amendments but I draw attention to one particular issue arising from government Amendment 107H, which would introduce a new clause. It appears that that would allow the Lord Chancellor to amend a section of primary legislation, so this clause would create a new Henry VIII power. Parliament ought always to be on the alert when new Henry VIII powers are proposed by the Government. It would be appropriate and helpful if the Minister explained the Government’s justification for this. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in his place but do not know whether he is minded to deploy his forensic powers in examination of this particular amendment. If he is, it would be otiose for me to say more.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I support the Government’s approach on tribunals. The position on tribunals has been sorted in England and I was party to the discussions that went on at that time. The provisions put forward by the Government seem very sensible. I note in particular the question of cross-deployment of members of the tribunals, not merely within Wales from tribunal to tribunal but also with English counterparts. That indicates something I have said in earlier debates: there is nothing so arcane about Welsh law passed by the Welsh Assembly that it would be impossible for those brought up in the same traditions in England and Wales to be able to cope perfectly adequately with the issues that may arise.
I also support Amendment 108, to which my name is attached. The Welsh division of the Youth Justice Board has operated very successfully in Wales and created new partnerships with social services, education and health—which are all devolved matters. There is a consensus view across what I hesitate to call the “stakeholders” in Wales in this area that it should be a devolved service. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, the opportunities for its improvement and for experimentation would no doubt then be possible.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to Welsh tribunals. We welcome the fact that the UK Government have brought forward these provisions. The new role of President of Welsh Tribunals will provide judicial leadership in support of the Welsh Government’s programme of tribunal reform. The ongoing reform of the Welsh devolved tribunals is designed to strengthen judicial independence and provide service improvement and consistent standards across England and Wales.
Another amendment in this group relates to youth justice. There is a great deal of good practice in terms of Welsh public services working closely with the UK Youth Justice Board for the benefit of the child affected, but it is worth noting that this is one of the few areas of policy relating to children and young people that is not devolved to Wales. There is a danger that services may be commissioned for young people generally in Wales, while those in the youth justice system will not be able to access them. This is one of the reasons why the Welsh Government would like to see the youth justice system devolved. But the view on our Benches is slightly different, in that we believe that we should wait for the full publication of the report by Charlie Taylor who is investigating this matter, and we believe that this is one of the areas on which our proposed justice commission should focus. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on these amendments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this group of amendments. I shall first deal with the points made in relation to Welsh tribunals and the President of Welsh Tribunals. I thank noble Lords for the general welcome for provisions that strengthen Welsh tribunals and their operation in Wales.
In relation to Amendment 107H, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that I do not see anything irregular in this because the power to be exercised by the Lord Chancellor in relation to adding tribunals and so on to the list is subject to affirmative resolution in new Section 107H(3). So that would be entirely regular—but perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The provision to provide power for the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument to amend primary legislation is—or ought to be —exceptional and needs some justification.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I stand to be corrected on this, but under new Section 107H(3) it is subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, and that is entirely appropriate.
Opposition Amendment 108 was ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and supported equally ably by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. As we have discussed on many occasions during the passage of the Bill, the Government’s position is clear: the justice system, including youth justice, should be a reserved issue. I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised by that response.
Under this model, the Assembly will continue to exercise legislative competence over key areas that impact on youth offending in Wales, such as health, children’s services and education. The Assembly and the Welsh Government will continue to be heavily involved in the management and rehabilitation of young offenders through partnership with the police—I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in relation to Arfon Jones the police and crime commissioner for North Wales—and devolved services under the Children and Young People First joint strategy, while a single system for managing young offenders across England and Wales is maintained.
In short, there is a very effective partnership at the moment. I appreciate that that is, to some extent, dependent on the chemistry of the people involved, so I will write on this issue to explain how it is operating at the moment—because it appears to be operating more than satisfactorily, as far as I can see. I note the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, in relation to the Charlie Taylor review. I agree that it is an important review that obviously the Government will look at.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to the Silk commission and my role in it. The commission’s second report found that youth justice services work well and that there is close working between devolved and non-devolved partners. Its recommendation on devolution was aimed at promoting greater integration. It is quite true to say that there was a recommendation regarding devolution, but it was in the context of devolving more than youth justice. The noble Lord will know that the St David’s Day agreement that followed did not present any consensus on devolving justice. Accordingly, it is the Government’s position that all aspects of the justice system, including youth justice, should be reserved. However, we recognise the need for the close working relationship which appears to be working very well at the moment.
Lord Wigley
Will the Minister address my point that there is devolution of a different kind going on with youth justice being devolved to areas such as Manchester, yet they are not having a totally separate Home Office or judicial structure of their own? In these circumstances, and given the fact that the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, a lot of Cross-Benchers and ourselves support this movement and the Silk commission’s recommendation, will he look at this matter between now and Report to see whether there is room for greater devolution, at least of large parts of this, to the Assembly in order to get a coherent service in Wales?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. I was coming on to deal with devolution to areas of England, to which the noble Lord referred, and to say that I will cover that in the letter that I am writing in relation to the current arrangements in Wales. My understanding—I have had a look at this—is that it does not involve devolution of policy issues in the way that this would to the Welsh Government. It will not allow English cities or regions to have separate policy arrangements, which I think is what the noble Lord is seeking. But I will cover that in the letter, as well as the arrangements that are likely to be in place in the areas of England where we are looking at devolution—Manchester, Liverpool, the West Midlands and so on. But, in short, I think that it is devolution of a different sort.
I shall move on and talk about some of the cost implications that would be involved in replicating some of the functions that appear to be working well, partly by the purchase of custodial places in England owing to the lack of, for example, secure establishments in North Wales and secure training centres across the whole of Wales. That would be a necessary part of any devolution package. Perhaps more importantly, reserving legislative competence for youth justice ensures that the Government can apply a coherent approach to criminal justice and the management of offenders across all age groups, while enabling the joined-up working that is happening at the moment in Wales on the issues affecting youth offending.
I recognise the significant and continuing role of devolved authorities in delivering youth justice services, as happens now, and the level of co-operation which already exists on the ground between devolved and non-devolved organisations. I put on record my thanks to the devolved and non-devolved organisations that are making it work. However, it is the Government’s view that not accepting the amendment will ensure that we have the most efficient, effective and consistent way to deliver youth justice services across England and Wales within the single legal jurisdiction.
“President of Welsh Tribunals
(1) The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales may appoint a person to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals or Llywydd Tribiwnlysoedd Cymru.(2) The President of Welsh Tribunals is not a Wales public authority for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006.(3) Schedule (President of Welsh Tribunals) makes further provision about the President of Welsh Tribunals and about appointments under subsection (1).(4) A holder of the office of President of Welsh Tribunals must, in carrying out the functions of that office, have regard to—(a) the need for the Welsh tribunals to be accessible;(b) the need for proceedings before those tribunals—(i) to be fair, and(ii) to be handled quickly and efficiently;(c) the need for members of those tribunals to be experts in the subject-matter of, or the law to be applied in, cases in which they decide matters;(d) the need to develop innovative methods of resolving disputes that are of a type that may be brought before those tribunals.(5) The President of Welsh Tribunals is responsible—(a) for the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the training, guidance and welfare of members of the Welsh tribunals within the resources made available by the Welsh Ministers;(b) for representing the views of members of the Welsh tribunals to the Welsh Ministers and to other members of the National Assembly for Wales.”
“Directions as to practice and procedure
(1) The President of Welsh Tribunals may give directions as to the practice and procedure to be followed by the Welsh tribunals.(2) The president or chairman of a Welsh tribunal may give directions as to the practice and procedure to be followed by that tribunal.(3) A power under this section to give directions includes—(a) power to vary or revoke directions made in the exercise of the power;(b) power to make different provision for different purposes (including different provision for different areas);(c) (in the case of directions by the President of Welsh Tribunals) power to make different provision for different tribunals.(4) Directions under this section may not be given without the approval of the Welsh Ministers.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to directions to the extent that they consist of guidance about any of the following—(a) the application or interpretation of the law;(b) the making of decisions by members of the Welsh tribunals. (6) Subsection (4) does not apply to directions to the extent that they consist of criteria for determining which members of the Welsh tribunals may be chosen to decide particular categories of matter; but the directions may, to that extent, be given only after consulting the Welsh Ministers.(7) Before the President of Welsh Tribunals gives directions under this section he or she must consult the president or chairman of each Welsh tribunal to which the directions relate.(8) Before the president or chairman of a Welsh tribunal gives directions under this section he or she must consult the President of Welsh Tribunals.(9) A person giving, varying or revoking directions under this section must publish the directions, or the variation or revocation, in whatever way the person thinks appropriate.”
“Cross-deployment of members of the Welsh tribunals
(1) In Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947 (Agricultural Land Tribunal etc), in paragraph 15A, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A member of a tribunal listed in section (The Welsh tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh tribunals) who is not a member of the Agricultural Land Tribunal may, at the request of the Chairman of the Agricultural Land Tribunal and with the approval of the President of Welsh Tribunals, act as a member of the Agricultural Land Tribunal.”(2) In Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (rent assessment committees), after paragraph 5A insert—“5B_ A member of a tribunal listed in section (The Welsh tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh tribunals) who is not a member of a rent assessment committee in Wales may, at the request of the president or vice-president of the panel and with the approval of the President of Welsh Tribunals, act as a member of such a committee.”(3) In Schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 1983 (Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales), in paragraph 5—(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A member of a tribunal listed in section (The Welsh tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh tribunals) who is not a member of the Tribunal but who is eligible to decide any matter in a case under this Act may, at the request of the President of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales and with the approval of the President of Welsh Tribunals, act as a member of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales.”(b) in sub-paragraph (3), after “sub-paragraph (1)” insert “or (1A)”.(4) In section 333 of the Education Act 1996 (Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A member of a tribunal listed in section (The Welsh tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh tribunals) who is not a member of the Tribunal may, at the request of the President and with the approval of the President of Welsh Tribunals, serve as a member of the Tribunal.”(5) In section 75 of the Local Government Act 2000 (Adjudication Panel for Wales), at the end insert—“(12) A member of a tribunal listed in section (The Welsh tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh tribunals) who is not a member of the Adjudication Panel for Wales may, at the request of the president or the deputy president (if any) and with the approval of the President of Welsh Tribunals, act as a member of a tribunal drawn from the Panel.”(6) In Schedule 3 to the Education Act 2005 (registration of inspectors in Wales: tribunals hearing appeals under section 27), in paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) A member of a tribunal listed in section (The Welsh tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh tribunals) who is not a member of a tribunal constituted to hear an appeal under section 27 may act as a member of such a tribunal at the request of its chairman and with the approval of the President of Welsh Tribunals.”(7) In Schedule 11 to the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 (nawm 01) (the Welsh Language Tribunal), after Part 2 insert—“PART 2ACROSS-DEPLOYMENT OF TRIBUNAL MEMBERS9A A member of the tribunal listed in section (The Welsh Tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh Tribunals) who is not a member of the Tribunal may, at the request of the President and with the approval of the President of Welsh Tribunals, act as a member of the Tribunal.””
“Cross-deployment of tribunal members and judges
(1) A member of a Welsh tribunal may act as a member of the First-tier Tribunal if—(a) the Senior President of Tribunals asks the member to do so, and(b) the President of Welsh Tribunals agrees to the request being made.(2) A judge or other member of—(a) the First-tier Tribunal, or(b) the Upper Tribunal,may act as a member of a specified Welsh tribunal if the President of Welsh Tribunals asks the member to do so and the Senior President of Tribunals agrees to the request being made.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a tribunal member who is a relevant judge.(4) A relevant judge may act as a member of a specified Welsh tribunal if—(a) the President of Welsh Tribunals asks the judge to do so, and (b) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales agrees to the request being made.(5) In subsections (2) and (4) “specified” means specified in the request.(6) In this section “relevant judge” means—(a) a judge of the Senior Courts;(b) a deputy judge of the High Court;(c) a Circuit judge;(d) a deputy Circuit judge;(e) a recorder;(f) a district judge;(g) a deputy district judge;(h) a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts);(i) a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts);(j) the holder of an office listed in—(i) the first column of the table in section 89(3C) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (senior High Court Masters etc), or(ii) column 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Act (High Court Masters etc).(7) A reference in this section to—(a) the President of Welsh Tribunals,(b) the Senior President of Tribunals, or(c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,includes a reference to an individual designated by that person to exercise the person’s functions under this section.(8) A designation made by a person under subsection (7) that is in force immediately before the person ceases to hold the office in question continues in force until varied or revoked by a subsequent holder of that office.”
“Power to amend section (Cross-deployment of tribunal members and judges)
(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations amend subsection (2) of section(Cross-deployment of tribunal members and judges)—(a) so as to add a tribunal to those listed,(b) so as to remove or revise a reference to a tribunal added under paragraph (a), or(c) so as to make amendments (to provisions of this Part or other enactments) that are consequential on an amendment within paragraph (a) or (b).(2) Regulations under this section may not add a tribunal whose functions—(a) are exercisable only in relation to Wales, and(b) do not relate to reserved matters (within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 2006).(3) No regulations are to be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to a statutory instrument containing regulations that only make—(a) provision for the omission of a reference to a tribunal that has ceased to exist, (b) provision for the variation of a reference in consequence of a change of name or transfer of functions, or(c) amendments within subsection (1)(c).Such an instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Rowlands
“( ) If a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) includes provision within devolved competence or provision modifying a devolution enactment, the Secretary of State must send a copy of the instrument or, if subsection (7B) applies, a draft of the instrument to the First Minister for Wales and the First Minister must lay it before the Assembly.”
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Morgan and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. It is the first of a group of nine amendments dealing with the issues that arise from Clause 53. I also acknowledge that in this group are amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
Before I turn my attention to the substance of the amendments, I remind the Committee that their established provenance, as it were, comes from amendments drafted and promoted, in some cases, by the Welsh Government and, in other cases, by the National Assembly. Given that, I hope that due weight will be attached to the amendments because of where they have come from and what they propose. I also draw attention to the fact that concerns about this clause have been brought to our attention not only by the National Assembly and the Welsh Government but by two reports from this House—one by the Delegated Powers Committee and a further one by the Constitution Committee. I shall draw to the attention of the Committee what those two reports say in their concerns about this clause.
It is not surprising, mind you, that this clause has attracted such attention. As we have just been reminded, yet again here is a clause that introduces a Henry VIII power. We have been seeing an increasing tendency to use Henry VIII powers. The phrase “Henry VIII power” harks back to the fact that similar provisions can be found in early Tudor statutes—for example, a Statute of Sewers in 1531 and, more interestingly, the statute of Wales of 1542-43, have such powers in them. I need not tell anyone in this Committee what a Henry VIII power is, but we might as well remind ourselves: it is a power that allows the Secretary of State to modify, amend, repeal or revoke any piece of primary legislation through a statutory instrument.
I suggest that the power in Clause 53 is a Henry VIII power-plus because of the way in which, in subsection (8), the clause defines primary legislation:
“In this section ‘primary legislation’ means … an Act of Parliament”,
or,
“a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales”.
In other words, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to modify, repeal or amend any Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales. As the clause stands, the Secretary of State can do so unilaterally. There is no provision in the clause to involve, in any meaningful way, either the Welsh Government or the National Assembly, whose Measures and Acts are their property. I strongly believe we should look at a process by which the National Assembly could scrutinise and approve any such proposed statutory instrument.
I therefore turn to the first of the reports from this House and the comments of the Delegated Powers Committee on this clause. I have a feeling that the Delegated Powers Committee is getting increasingly exasperated by the way in which these Henry VIII powers are being introduced and, for that very reason, by Clause 53 in particular. I remind the Committee what the Delegated Powers Committee said about Clause 53:
“a Bill should not as a matter of routine confer a Henry VIII power such as that in clause 53”.
That is the first of its exasperated comments. The second is, as that committee has repeatedly said on other Bills that have included Henry VIII powers, that,
“where a Henry VIII power is included in a Bill, it must be fully explained and justified in the delegated powers memorandum”.
No such full explanation or justification has been included in the memorandums on this clause.
Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow my noble friend Lord Rowlands, whom I first met as an extremely enthusiastic Welsh Office Housing Minister in 1974. He is as enthusiastic as ever, and his enthusiasm for devolution and for protecting and developing it and everything to do with Welsh administration has not waned since that time.
As is often the case with our parliamentary Bills, the description of Clause 55 and Part 4 as “consequential provision” is totally inappropriate. I shall mainly address the amendments in my name in the group. Whenever I see the name of the Secretary of State for Wales—the name of the office, I should say, because there are distinguished former Secretaries of State present—referred to in devolution legislation, as a former Presiding Officer, I always ask why. I particularly ask why here for the reasons already set out and on the basis of the evidence given not just to committees of this House—we have heard about the Constitution Committee report—but to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Assembly. As I announced in the previous debate, I am now returned to that committee, although with a different affiliation.
As we know, it is the responsibility of such committees to look at legislative proposals from a constitutional point of view and assess their validity and constitutional propriety. The discussions of the National Assembly committee included one with the erudite and experienced Constitution Committee of this House. I was delighted that we met together, because it confirmed everything we had thought for ourselves. Therefore, we have the full support and authority of this House in what we are saying, and the authority of the distinguished lawyers I have cited before and will no doubt cite again when we debate these issues.
Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin, in evidence to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee of the National Assembly on 22 June this year, emphasised that he was just as concerned about the provisions that now appear in Clause 53 as he was when they first appeared in the draft Bill; they have continued or been revived in the current Bill. It is a basic constitutional principle that a United Kingdom Secretary of State should not change legislation made by the elected Assembly of Wales. I would argue that Clause 2 is contrary to that principle. To go back to a discussion that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I had in a previous sitting in Committee, how can we state that normally, Parliament will not legislate on behalf of the Assembly on matters which are in the competence of the Assembly, and yet give powers to a Secretary of State to change legislation?
Professor Thomas Watkin’s view is very clear: any power which changes the law of the Assembly should be exercised in the Assembly. It is the Assembly that should be able to say whether it is acceptable to change the law. He goes further: he says that the approach in the clause,
“highlights the fact that the powers of Westminster—even in devolved areas—are still superior in terms of their voice”.
That was said by a senior legal academic in Wales, and those views are shared by Professor Rick Rawlings. There should be further amendment to this clause, as I seek in the amendments in my name, to ensure that the consent of the National Assembly is always required when such a power is exercised. These amendments have the support, as I indicated, of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee; the imprimatur, if I may so describe it, of the Llywydd, the Presiding Officer; and the advice of the Assembly legal services.
We have to emphasise that in this House we are dealing with absolutely clear constitutional principles. Regulations that seek to change the law but which apply only in Wales and are made by the National Assembly must always be approved by the National Assembly. That is a simple case of constitutional propriety, as has been argued so eloquently already by my noble friend Lord Rowlands. I would regard any attempt by another legislature to change National Assembly law without consent as constitutionally unsound. As I have already said, it goes against the principles of Clause 2.
I know what the Minister will say because we have discussed these matters. He will not accept my amendments, but I ask him to consider whether it is appropriate sometimes that he should apply his well-known constitutional skills and excellence as an academic lawyer to his practice of politics—even in this House—as he used to apply them so effectively when we both developed devolution in those early days together. I know that this is an unfair argument. It is an argumentum ad hominem, which is inappropriate, but I plead with him, even at this stage of our discussions, and certainly between now and Report, to reconsider. I will not say to him what I said once to a senior politician in Wales—“Go and pray”—but I ask him to pray in aid all the legal advice that we have given him in this House.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I have the privilege of being a member of the Constitution Committee, but I speak on my own behalf. I do not have the privilege of being a Welshman but I have the privilege of looking at a statute; I have the privilege of remembering what a baleful influence Henry VIII was on the history of Wales, and his baleful influence looks as though it will continue. The 1536 Act was intended to crush the Welsh nation and the Welsh language. The devolution process was intended to row back hundreds of years of history.
We are being invited to give Henry VIII powers to a Minister, by secondary legislation, to amend, modify, repeal or get rid of—whatever language we care to use—primary legislation. I have a very strong view on this, and shall address the House interminably about the besmirching effect on our constitutional arrangements of such clauses. However, I do not have to stop there in this instance. If Parliament chooses to give Henry VIII powers to the Minister, that is Parliament’s choice, but here it is giving Henry VIII powers to a Minister to reject, modify, get rid of or dispose of the legislation of the National Assembly—in other words, to eradicate, nullify or replace a statutory provision, enacted by a democratically elected legislature of our United Kingdom, on which the people living in Wales will have acted while the particular legislation has been enforced, and all without any consent from the Assembly. That seems an astonishing insult to the democratic process. The affirmative procedure that will undoubtedly be suggested as the solution does not—I say this with great respect—address the democratic deficit.
The solution to the problem involves having another look at Clause 2 and transposing it into Clause 53. I do not need to spell this out. It is perfectly obvious that the consent of the Welsh Assembly is needed. I reject in Clause 2 that weasel word “normally”, which has all sorts of connotations that are not helpful to the analysis. There is another word beginning with “n” which should take its place: never.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 120 and 120A, first to Amendment 120, standing in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Kinnock and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is a very straightforward amendment. Clause 2 introduces a new requirement that Parliament,
“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”.
That was at the heart of the amendments that have just been addressed. It is an admirable clause, and its logic should surely apply to the Bill as well. In other words, the Bill should not come into effect—which is what the terms of Amendment 120 spell out—without the legislative consent of the Assembly. That is all it is asking for. I know that the Minister has worked very closely with Welsh Government Ministers, and his officials with theirs, so it seems to me that there should be no objection on his part to this amendment. Indeed, I hope he will respond in a conciliatory way because in that way, I think, he will also expedite progress on the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 120A, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. It will ensure that the Bill cannot come into force unless the Treasury has laid before each House of Parliament a document which sets out a fiscal framework for Wales agreed by the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government. As Your Lordships are aware from my speech at Second Reading, I am deeply sceptical that Wales will benefit from income tax devolution and fearful that Wales will actually lose out. The Treasury will not permit much-needed borrowing powers for Wales unless these are set against the revenue-raising powers that this Bill provides for. The First Minister desperately needs that borrowing to invest in infrastructure—from new roads and rail links to relieve chronic congestion, to new hospitals and schools. What is more, the Treasury will not otherwise provide the cover it could so easily do at such minuscule interest rates as currently exist for that infrastructure investment. I think this is financial smoke and mirrors—Treasury subterfuge. Yet the Government have trapped Wales between a rock and a hard place.
I am suspicious that Wales is being badly short-changed by this income tax devolution, which is what I seek to address in this amendment. It is not about the substance of devolution, because that has already been debated, but about the fiscal framework that accompanies it. We do not yet have sight of the fiscal framework to accompany tax devolution, though we are grateful to the Minister for promising, in answer—and on the record—to my question on Second Reading, that we would be able to scrutinise it very carefully by Report. I am also grateful for his recent letter on the subject. All I can say is that it will have to be a mighty, mighty generous fiscal framework to Wales to persuade me to support it. The Treasury in a generous frame of mind will be a novel experience for us all. I speak as someone who, like my noble friend Lord Murphy, has negotiated with the Treasury as a Cabinet Minister on behalf of Wales.
Therefore I wish to put a series of arguments to the Minister which will need to be fully addressed by the fiscal framework. In the time that he has left to tidy up that framework, I hope he will address them.
I draw first on the authoritative 2010 report of the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, chaired by Gerald Holtham. The key point is that Holtham acknowledged explicitly the risk that Wales’s income tax base might grow more slowly than the United Kingdom’s income tax base—that is to say, the risk of differential tax base growth. If that happened, the Wales budget would shrink relative to the UK as a whole and the degree of redistribution to Wales from richer parts of the UK would reduce.
Holtham noted that one option could be to index deductions from the block grant to the growth over time of the devolved tax base in Wales. This would completely offset a devolved income tax in Wales and eliminate any risk arising from differential tax base growth. Other options would only partially eliminate this risk. So Holtham came up with a compromise, concluding in paragraph 5.25 that the,
“best compromise appears to be very infrequent reviews of the tax bases of the devolved administration and a consequent adjustment to deductions from the block grant”.
Such reviews and adjustments would require negotiations between the Wales Government and UK Ministers. Holtham suggested reviews every 12 to 15 years. Frankly that is far, far too long a period in my view, especially with the outlook for the British economy looking so uncertain with Brexit, as the Chancellor confirmed in his Statement today.
Holtham made no recommendation for any kind of Treasury assurance to ensure that Wales did not lose out. The Holtham report simply recommended that the block grant should be reduced by an equivalent amount in the first year of the new system and that in,
“subsequent years, the size of the block grant deduction should be calculated to reflect the growth of the relevant income tax bases across the UK as a whole”.
That leaves the Wales budget open to being squeezed due to the Wales income tax base growing at a slower rate than that of the UK as a whole, with no guarantee that the Treasury would top up the block grant to fill the gap, meaning that Wales could certainly lose out. Holtham recommended that the block grant should be based on a needs-based formula that would determine budgets across England, Wales and Scotland. The three most relevant factors determining need would be demography, deprivation and costs.
Based on past spending in England, Scotland and Wales, Holtham recommended that Wales should receive £115 per person to spend on devolved activities for every £100 per person spent on comparable activities in England. Will that be achieved by the fiscal framework—I hope that the Minister will reassure me—or will Wales be left with a funding gap? Holtham acknowledged that, had his needs formula been applied in 2010-11, Wales would have received only £112 for every £100 spent on devolved activities in England, due to weaknesses in the Barnett formula. This would have left Wales with a shortfall, a funding gap of about £400 million. Will the fiscal framework eliminate that gap?
I also refer to the report by the respected Wales Governance Centre, Income Tax and Wales, published in February this year. On page 4 of the executive summary, it chillingly warns that,
“the method chosen to reduce the Welsh block grant to account for the additional Income Tax revenues has the potential to cause losses of hundreds of millions of pounds each year to the Welsh budget”.
Hundreds of millions each year—that is a massive risk, surely; a serious risk of hospitals and care homes closing, teacher numbers being cut, and local government budgets being savaged still further on top of the current round of austerity. Those issues need to be addressed in the fiscal framework.
The Wales Governance Centre draws attention to important developments since the Holtham and Silk commissions. UK Government decisions to raise the personal tax allowance have drawn disproportionately more of Welsh incomes out of the income tax base than across the UK as a whole. So while UK income tax receipts have grown by 6% across the UK since 2010-11, the equivalent figure for Wales is only 2%—worryingly, only one-third of the UK figure. That is because Wales has income levels below the UK average. Fifty-five per cent of all taxpayers’ income in Wales comes from individuals earning less than £30,000 per annum compared with 42% across the UK.
When in November 2015 the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government’s decision to drop the referendum requirement for income tax devolution to Wales, he also declared that they would protect the Welsh budget by introducing a floor underneath Wales’ relative per capita funding, to save it from any so-called “Barnett squeeze”. But lack of clarification about this proposed Barnett floor has prevented the Wales Governance Centre from checking in detail how it might interact with income tax devolution and subsequent block grant adjustments—so we just do not know. The floor may be flawed, but nobody can tell.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I would like to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about his Amendment 117. I am puzzled as to why in the last line of that amendment he has used “or” and not “and”. As drafted, his amendment would allow either House of this Parliament a veto on a statutory instrument made in Wales, and the role and power of the Assembly would be discretionary. That would seem to frustrate his own purpose. I am the more puzzled because in his Amendment 114 he uses “and” and not “or”. I would be intrigued to know why he has altered the drafting between one amendment and the other.
I turn to the amendments just now proposed by my noble friend Lord Hain. I say simply that I strongly support his proposition that the Bill should not become law until a legislative consent Motion has been passed by the Welsh Assembly. It would be ironic in the extreme if these powers were to be imposed upon the Welsh Assembly. I know that the legislation is the product of an enormous amount of consultation between the Government here, the Government in Wales and the National Assembly. None the less, it would seem at the very least a courtesy and clearly appropriate, within the proper spirit of devolution, that the legislative consent Motion should be expected and required from Wales to endorse this legislative enactment.
I also want to say a word about my noble friend Lord Hain’s Amendment 120A. He has given a very serious, important and compelling warning as to the dangers for Wales of being charged with income tax-altering powers—and perhaps coming under pressure actually to use them—without there being a reliable guarantee by the Government of the United Kingdom that Wales will have the resources to enable it to take advantage of those powers towards rates on income tax, without it leading to the fiscal impoverishment of Wales and the wider impoverishment of the Welsh economy and people. I give my strong support to my noble friend’s suggestion that none of the legislation that we have been debating in the Bill should come into force until that fiscal framework is in place. Indeed, I would go further. I suggest to the Minister that we should not proceed to Report on the Bill until we have that fiscal framework, because it seems very difficult for the House rationally to take decisions about what powers should be reserved and devolved in the absence of any clear picture of what resources will be available to Wales from 2020 onwards, following the expiry of present undertakings.
In our debates on the reserved powers, the Minister has been highly constructive and very generous again and again in his willingness to take away the proposals made in various amendments and consider them further. We know that he seeks to provide a decent, generous and sustainable provision for devolution in Wales and it would be helpful to the House, and I dare say even helpful to him, if we did not proceed to a further stage in the passage of this legislation until the Government have also resolved these internal discussions that are taking place. In my view, the Bill was introduced prematurely to Parliament. A huge amount of work had gone into it: there have been many iterations and radical revisions of legislative proposals for devolution to Wales in this phase, and the Minister has always played a constructive part. It would be better, if there is time within this Session of Parliament, if we did not move hastily to Report until both issues have been clarified. What will be the fiscal resources in the longer term and what will be the formula or pattern of fiscal resourcing for Wales? We should not proceed further with the legislative process until the Government are much clearer than they have been hitherto on what exactly it is that they want to devolve.
Lord Elis-Thomas
May I extend to the noble Lord the courtesy of responding to his question relating to the amendment standing in my name? In the absence of an effective form of co-legislating between this House and the National Assembly for Wales, what I have sought to do in the process of Committee is to present to this House under my name—because there was no other way of doing it—a series of amendments which have been debated within the work of the constitutional affairs committee. They emanate from the Presiding Officer and in some cases I have even borrowed wording from the Welsh Government, with their permission, and wording from within the committee itself. We are thereby offering the Minister, as he sits before me, a whole choice—a menu—of alternatives to deal with the issues that he has created for himself. I hope that he will be able to take some of them up and that that answers the question.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is not only a master of procedure both in the Welsh Assembly and in this Parliament; he is also most ingenious politically.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Rowlands on his tidy amendment, which comes from a tidy friend. I have had the great pleasure of knowing my noble friend for 46 years; in fact, I was still in the sixth form when he first became a Welsh Member of Parliament. I know that the Minister has been hugely constructive during proceedings on the Bill. I hope that he will listen carefully to the points made by my noble friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others with regard to Amendment 111.
I also support my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas on his amendments, particularly on what he said about the role of the Secretary of State for Wales having changed dramatically. When he was a new Presiding Officer and I was a new Secretary of State, I had a desk and a seat in the National Assembly. I also had an office there. When I had finished some years later in 2009, I had lost both my seat and my office. That was a measure of the Assembly growing up and beginning to understand that we do not want Secretaries of State interfering any more in what it does.
Lord Elis-Thomas
I am sure that my noble friend will want to explain to the Committee that this happened with the full consent of the holder of the office of Secretary of State, and that our relationship was always one of positive development.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
I am grateful to my noble friend. I want in particular to support my noble friend Lord Hain and his two amendments. For the whole of the Labour Government—from 1999 onwards, anyway—he and I held the position of Secretary of State for Wales between us. Two things emerged which were themes in that job—he has already touched on this. One was ensuring that there were good relations between the Assembly in Cardiff and the Government and Parliament in London. It seems to me that Amendment 120, which talks about the legislative consent Motion, is a vital link. I do not think that this Bill would be worth anything unless the Welsh Assembly agreed with it. It would be a pointless, meaningless Bill.
More particularly, on Amendment 120A, with regard to the fiscal framework, the Minister—and his boss—will know that relations between spending departments and the Treasury are never easy. Most of my time as a territorial Secretary of State was spent in negotiations with a less than benevolent Treasury, even when we thought that there was a lot of money about. It would try to stop and, occasionally, it would try to obstruct. I will not rehearse the arguments that we had some days ago on the devolution of income tax and a referendum but the danger with the devolution of income tax is that the Treasury will do its best to ensure that it keeps as much money as it can in negotiations between the Welsh Assembly—and the Secretary of State and Minister acting on the Assembly’s behalf—and the Treasury. There is an important issue here that, if the way in which the Assembly gets its money is to be dramatically changed—it is a dramatic change; I expressed earlier that I am quite dubious about the good effects of that—it will not necessarily be in terms of the democratic nature of income tax but the practical, realistic figures that result from its introduction. The people of Wales must not lose out upon the introduction of income tax powers for Wales and, ultimately, there should be a benefit to the people as a consequence of this new fiscal framework.
I know that we cannot hold up a crystal ball, but my noble friend made a very powerful case with regard to the resource base in Wales. We are not a rich nation and the amount of money that we can raise in income tax is low, as has been indicated even today in the figures that the Government have put out with the Autumn Statement. The amount that comes from every penny raised in Wales is effectively much less than can be raised in the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the need to ensure—as my noble friend rightly said—that we share and distribute our resources.
This amendment asks the Minister to tell us—on Report I assume, by which time there will hopefully have been an agreement on the fiscal framework—that the Bill should not proceed unless that fiscal framework is such that it is, at worst, neutral, and, at best, an improvement for the people of Wales in terms of what they get out of the settlement. There is no point in having a Bill that introduces the devolution of income tax if the Welsh people are going to be worse off because of the interrelationship between that and the block grant.
I have great pleasure in supporting all the amendments that have been proposed this evening.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support fervently and earnestly these amendments. I admire very much the eloquence and force with which those main arguments have been articulated, particularly, if I may say so, the magisterial rebuke that was delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.
It is not enough just to safeguard legislation in Cardiff. That of course, has to be done; it would be a nonsense to create a sister parliament—as it was described by Speaker Martin when the Cardiff Assembly was established—and, at the same time, to treat it as a meaningless plaything. But that is not the whole point. Most of the legislation they let into Wales is Westminster-based so that, in so far as protection is concerned, it would have to be protected not just in Cardiff but here as well, otherwise the main thrust of this issue would be missed.
I endorse everything that has been said by those who have held up this question of the template, as it were, of Clause 2. The Sewel protection, which was endorsed in Scottish legislation, has been perpetuated in this Bill. There is the danger that if nothing is done at all, the powers that we are discussing could make meaningless everything that is contained in Clause 2. I deliberately say “could make meaningless”, because there is the possibility that Clause 2 is meaningless already. In other words, if it were a case of Clause 2 being inserted in order to build a shield or carapace to protect the constitutional entity of Wales, it would be a very severe attack upon that protection. But, if in fact it were nothing more than merely declaratory of what was happening in any event, with the sovereign power of the Westminster Parliament deciding what was or was not necessary, it would of course be utterly meaningless. I do not think it necessary for us to dwell any further on that matter but it should be held up as a template for this piece of legislation.
My third point is that Henry VIII was no great benefactor as far as Wales was concerned. The whole purpose of the Acts of Union was not only to say that Wales should not exist but that it never had existed. It was said that,
“the dominion, principality, and country of Wales … is and ever hath been incorporated, annexed”,
and included within the greater realm of England. We never were there at all. Certainly, as far as Henry VIII clauses are concerned, they should be dealt with very carefully, because they erase the authority of Parliament —or they are, at any rate, in a position to threaten that, at their very worst.
I remember reading a book when I was a student by Sir Gordon Hewart, who was Attorney-General in, I think, the late 1930s. The book is called The New Despotism; it is an examination of the vast growth in powers delegated to Ministers by way of regulations. He saw this as a very great threat to parliamentary sovereignty. He was not talking about Henry VIII clauses but about the positive powers given to Ministers from day to day by way of regulations. If there was a new despotism then, now—three-quarters of a century and more later—that despotism has grown enormously. I would urge that thought be given to the exercise of delegated powers to Ministers. More and more are given every year and Parliament, even with the help of the massive effort of this House to scrutinise, finds it more and more difficult to sieve everything that goes through. And those powers are increasing. What Sir Gordon Hewart would have said of these negative powers I know not but, if there was a despotism three-quarters of a century ago, there is potential for very considerable despotism now.
I urge the House to accept the arguments put forward so magnificently by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge and indeed by those powerful bodies, the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee of this House. They are dangerous powers to use. We should use them with very great circumspection in any event. However, in Wales there is a principle involved—namely, that you do not set up a parliament which you intend to be a genuine devolved Assembly, and then treat it as a meaningless plaything.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard some stunning contributions this evening on an incredibly important aspect of the Bill. We have heard a devastating critique of Clause 53, in particular by my noble friend Lord Rowlands. I thank him for giving so much attention to an extremely difficult aspect of the Bill for the Assembly to live with. I urge the Minister to think very seriously about this clause, which is about repealing provisions in primary legislation. Within this House, there is an ability to look at those provisions, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said. Both Houses can have the opportunity to look at what is being proposed. However, that opportunity is not available to the Assembly. That needs to be underlined. It is deeply discourteous to the Assembly and wrong in principle.
If the Secretary of State proposes by order to modify parliamentary legislation or tidy it up, as my noble friend Lord Rowlands suggested, quite rightly he cannot do that without Parliament’s express agreement. In the same way, the Assembly’s legislation should be protected from modification up to and including repeal unless the Assembly is first asked to give its approval to a draft order proposing such a modification. The consent of the Assembly is needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, suggested.
Secondly, we seem to be continually going back to the problems with Clause 2. I again urge the Minister to listen to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said about that clause. I know that the Minister was not persuaded that there was a need to amend it as we suggested. But I think it was common ground that a parliamentary Bill modifying the Assembly’s legislative competence could proceed only with the Assembly’s consent. That is an important feature of the devolution settlements. But the problem is that Clause 53 envisages that the Secretary of State can, with the approval of each House of Parliament, modify any Act of Parliament in consequence of provisions in this Bill.
Given the subject matter of the Bill, the Acts vulnerable to such modification are most likely to be the earlier Welsh devolution legislation—the 2006 Act and the 2014 Act. If modifications to those Acts were proposed by way of a parliamentary Bill, the Assembly’s consent would be required. But the Government apparently envisage that, if the modifications are to be given effect by a Secretary of State’s order under Clause 53, it can proceed without the need for Assembly consent. That cannot be right.
Amendments 111, 113 and others in this group address the two points that I have outlined. Their effect in summary is that, if the Secretary of State proposes to use his order-making powers to modify Assembly legislation, that should be subject to prior Assembly consent. That requirement for prior Assembly consent in respect of a proposed Secretary of State order is also to apply if the order envisages a modification of a devolution enactment—in other words, a provision of either the 2006 Act or the 2014 Act. In that way, the fundamental principle that Assembly consent is required before its functions or competence can be modified is preserved. I urge the Minister to think very carefully before proceeding any further with the Bill. This fundamental principle undermines the democratic integrity of the Assembly.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for drawing attention to the point that a legislative consent Motion needs to be passed by the Assembly, and the financial framework settled. I hope that Treasury Ministers were listening to what he had to say, but I will make sure that the Assembly Minister who will negotiate this issue hears what my noble friend had to say, because he underlined some important issues. We cannot see Wales lose out financially as a result of the Bill.
I know that we have previously had reassurance from the Minister on the need for a legislative consent Motion before the Bill is passed. If he could underline that once more for us, it would give us confidence. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will talk us through the final sequencing of the next part of the consideration of the Bill. What will the sequencing be? When will the financial framework be necessary? When will the legislative consent memorandum be put before the Assembly? When will the Motion come before it? If the Minister could talk us through that sequencing, it would be very useful.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. I shall first discuss Amendments 111 to 119, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, for moving Amendment 111. I understand the points that he made. He was ably backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others. I think that the arguments basically boil down to two strands. The first is the type of issue that is subject to this tidying-up exercise, as we see it. The second issue concerns equality of treatment of the Assembly in relation to Parliament. I will deal with both points.
First, it is not anticipated that the provision in Clause 53 will be used for anything more than minor consequential amendments. I urge noble Lords to be very careful about what they wish for in relation to this. I will double-check examples and write to noble Lords about them. But if, for example, the issue is one of tidying up an enactment to provide that a parish council in England is a community council in Wales, I suggest that that sort of issue is best dealt with in the way set out in the Bill. However, given the understandable concerns that have been raised, I will write to noble Lords giving examples in relation to that.
Lord Howarth of Newport
On the point the Minister has just made, would it be possible to amend the Bill to make it clear that this power is intended to deal only with minor, consequential amendments? If the Bill were able to say that in terms, it might be helpful. It might also be helpful to the courts in future if they found themselves attempting to construe the legislation.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I also thank him for his very kind comments earlier. I will cover these issues in a letter, if I may, as I would like to go away and have a look at this. I am certainly not making any commitment on that but I would like to give examples of how this has been used and how we anticipate that it will be used in the future.
The second issue is in many ways a more serious concern, certainly for somebody who has been a Member of the Assembly and knows that it has to be dealt with in a proper constitutional and respectful way—so I listened very carefully to what was said there. This has been a very considered debate. However, if we were to provide a role in approving regulations such as was suggested, it would be anomalous and would introduce unnecessary complexity into the process. I will explain why that is the case. In reality, we would discuss with the Welsh Government any proposed changes that impacted on Welsh legislation.
To illustrate the anomaly, the Assembly acts in exactly the same way as Parliament does. For example, the Assembly has recently passed the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. Section 255 of that Act includes a power for Welsh Ministers to make consequential amendments to any enactment. “Enactment” is defined in Section 252 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act to include Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation made under Acts of Parliament. Further, in the last two years two-thirds of Assembly legislation has had similar provisions. So, in relation to the equality argument, we are dealing in exactly the same way here as in Parliament. Noble Lords may say that that does not answer the first point, and it does not—but it certainly answers the point about equality.
Lord Elis-Thomas
I do not think that it does. There is a difference between a legislature which is developing new legislation within the framework previously laid down by this Parliament because there is no other legislative framework, and making provision—which therefore distinguishes itself from the rest of the United Kingdom—and what a United Kingdom Parliament might seek to do, and for what reason, to intervene in the legislative process of what might be regarded as a subordinate legislature. Those are the differences, and that is where the concerns come from.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, much as I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, that is not a tenable argument in law, as I am sure he knows. I take the point about the political dimension, as he knows, but on the legal aspect, the two bodies operate in just the same way. However, as I say, I will write to noble Lords on that. I understand the arguments being put forward, by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, in particular, as well as his point about the evolving devolution process, which makes this type of arrangement sensible where there is reciprocity. I will write to noble Lords on that point.
Amendments 120 and 120A were spoken to effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who took us through some of the financial aspects that have to be considered. I understand that. First, on something I have stated many times, although I will certainly state it again, we will not move to Third Reading—as I said at Second Reading—until there is a legislative consent Motion. So, if there is no legislative consent Motion—and there may not be; that is an issue for the National Assembly for Wales and the Ministers of the Welsh Government—we will have no Third Reading.
In relation to Report, I understand from discussions with officials—this may well be confirmed by Members of the Opposition Front Bench, who obviously have had discussions with Welsh Ministers—that there is a desire for us to move to Report so that we are closer to the sort of Bill that we will see at the end and so that the Welsh Government can then move to the legislative consent Motion, content that we are moving in an appropriate way. So we are keeping in touch on that, but I understand that there is a consensual element here to having Report, the first date of which is already public and will take place before Christmas.
We will have two days on Report to reflect on many of the important issues we have dealt with, and the second day will be soon after we come back in the new year. As I understand it—the noble Baroness pressed me on this issue—we are hoping for a legislative consent Motion in the middle of January before moving to Third Reading shortly after that. That is the suggested choreography, but of course we are in the hands of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales in relation to the legislative consent Motion. I cannot be definitive about that but I can be definitive, as I think I have been in the past, that we will not move to Third Reading until we have the legislative consent Motion. I should also say that there is pressure elsewhere in the legislative programme, as I am sure noble Lords will accept.
Lord Hain
Just briefly, given what the Minister has just said, does that mean that the fiscal framework will not be available to be scrutinised before the Assembly has given its legislative consent Motion? In other words, if he is promising it only by Third Reading, is he saying that the legislative consent Motion would have to be passed by the Assembly without the fiscal framework being agreed—or, indeed, without both Houses having had a look at it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord raises a point about my stating that we would not proceed until Third Reading. That is a restatement of what I said at Second Reading—I checked that before coming to the House. As I have indicated, the precise timing of the legislative consent Motion is not dependent on me, the Government, the House of Lords or on the House of Commons but on agreement between the Treasury and Welsh Government Ministers and then the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales.
On the fiscal framework document, the noble Lord will know that the Bill has already been through the other place and will go back there for consideration of government amendments—we have many government amendments that are measures that we all agree upon. But I am not sure that in any event that would give the opportunity for consideration of the fiscal framework as it will be only Commons consideration of Lords amendments: so they will only be able to consider any amendments we make on Third Reading.
I will endeavour through representations to see what additional information we can give on the discussions. Another meeting is due on 1 December, and from what we can gather, discussions are going well—I have heard this from both the Welsh Government side and our own Treasury side. I will endeavour to give an update as to where we are on 1 December. If we are able to give additional information, I will be happy to do that—but to some extent that will depend on the consent of the Welsh Government as well as our own Government. I do not foresee any problem on that, but obviously that is for them to determine. The date of the legislative consent Motion is dependent not just upon having the fiscal framework agreed, as I understand it; it then has to be considered by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee of the National Assembly—I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is indicating agreement to that.
Lord Elis-Thomas
My Lords, I understand that the committee is about to begin consideration.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, who I know sits on that committee and plays a leading part in it. I assure the noble Lord that if I can help and be forthcoming with any information, it will be made available.
On the other issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain—the fiscal framework and the discussions on it—first, it is not for me to enter into these negotiations. They are going on between the Treasury and Welsh Government Ministers, and whatever my political differences with Carwyn Jones, Mark Drakeford and others, I have no doubt about and in fact have the highest opinion of their abilities and insight. This is a consensual arrangement. If they do not want an agreement on proposed terms, they have the option of not saying so—and if there is no legislative consent Motion, there is no Bill. So there is no question of a pistol being applied to anybody’s head; the issue is for the National Assembly to determine.
Having been there, I have the greatest respect for the Ministers and officials. That is being hammered out, I gather that robust discussions are taking place and I am sure, and hope, that they are considering the best interests of Wales. But any representations by noble Lords opposite should be made to the First Minister, the Finance Minister and others in those discussions. It is not for me or for us to shadow manage what they are doing—and, I am sure, doing very effectively.
That probably summarises the Government’s position. I have given the undertaking sought; I will do my best to make information available on the fiscal discussions as they become available. I understand what noble Lords say about protecting Welsh interests, but under these devolved Administrations and in these devolved days, it is for the Welsh Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales to bring forward the legislative consent Motion. With that, and with those undertakings, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Rowlands
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister, as always, and I am fascinated by this concept of “reciprocal” and the promise of a letter that will describe to us how this will work or has worked. Does the Welsh Assembly exercise such power to intervene to change English legislation?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure whether it has, but I will try to give the noble Lord that information. The material point is that it can, just as we can. I am not sure how many times that has been exercised, but I will endeavour to cover that in the letter.
Lord Rowlands
Again, I shall look forward to that letter. I do not know how other noble Lords feel but I just find it very difficult to believe that there should not be a provision of the kind we have been trying to introduce. If the United Kingdom Parliament chooses, unilaterally, to seek to amend legislation that belongs to the National Assembly, it has to have some form of consent or approval. That is a fundamental principle of constitutional propriety and property.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Another point that I had meant to mention—again, I will cover it in the letter; I appreciate that it does not fully answer the point but I shall try to give examples—is that the identical power exists in relation to Scotland.
Lord Rowlands
I am looking forward to this collection of letters—a few have already been mentioned. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I warn the Minister that we will come back to this issue on Report.
“PRESIDENT OF WELSH TRIBUNALSPART 1APPOINTMENTDuty to fill vacancies
1 (1) If there is a vacancy in the office of President of Welsh Tribunals, the Lord Chief Justice must appoint a person to that office.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a vacancy while the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers all agree that it may remain unfilled.(3) In this Schedule “the Lord Chief Justice” means the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.The two routes to appointment: agreement under this paragraph or selection under Part 2
2 (1) The Lord Chief Justice, before he or she may appoint a person to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals, must consult—(a) the Lord Chancellor, and(b) the Welsh Ministers.(2) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) apply if—(a) the outcome of consultation under sub-paragraph (1) is agreement between the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers as to the person to be appointed, and(b) the person holds or has held office as—(i) an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, or(ii) a puisne judge of the High Court.(3) The Lord Chief Justice must appoint the person to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals, subject to sub-paragraph (4).(4) Where the person—(a) declines to be appointed, or does not agree within a time specified to him or her for that purpose, or(b) is otherwise not available within a reasonable time to be appointed,the Lord Chief Justice must, instead of appointing the person, consult afresh under sub-paragraph (1).(5) If the Lord Chief Justice has consulted under sub-paragraph (1) but sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) do not apply following that consultation, he or she must make a request to the Judicial Appointments Commission (“the Commission”) for a person to be selected for appointment to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals.PART 2SELECTION BY THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSIONEligibility for selection
3 A person is eligible for selection in pursuance of a request under paragraph 2(5) only if he or she satisfies the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 7-year basis.The selection process
4 (1) On receiving a request from the Lord Chief Justice under paragraph 2(5) the Commission must appoint a selection panel. (2) The panel must have an odd number of members not less than five.(3) The members of the panel must include—(a) at least two who are non-legally-qualified,(b) at least two judicial members, and(c) at least two members of the Commission.Contributions to meeting more than one of the requirements may be made by the same person’s membership of the panel.(4) The panel must—(a) determine the selection process to be applied;(b) apply the selection process;(c) make a selection accordingly.(5) As part of the selection process the panel must consult—(a) the Lord Chancellor;(b) the Welsh Ministers.(6) One person only must be selected for the appointment to which a request relates.(7) Sub-paragraph (4) applies to selection under this paragraph and to selection under regulations made under paragraph 7.(8) A selection panel is a committee of the Commission.Merit and good character
5 (1) This paragraph applies to any selection by a selection panel appointed under paragraph 4.(2) Selection must be solely on merit.(3) A person must not be selected unless the selection panel body is satisfied that he or she is of good character.(4) Neither “solely” in sub-paragraph (2), nor Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 (public appointments etc), prevents the selection panel, where two persons are of equal merit, from preferring one of them over the other for the purpose of increasing diversity within—(a) the group of persons who hold offices for which there is selection by panels appointed by the Commission, or(b) a sub-group of that group.Encouragement of diversity
6 (1) A selection panel appointed under paragraph 4, in performing its functions under this Part, must have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection.(2) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 5.Regulations about selection
7 (1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations made with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and the Welsh Ministers—(a) make further provision about the process to be applied in a case where the Commission receives a request under paragraph 2(5);(b) make further provision about—(i) membership of selection panels appointed under paragraph 4, and(ii) the process that is to be applied in a case where a selection panel is required to be appointed under that paragraph;(c) secure, subject to paragraph 8 and any provision within paragraph (2)(d) that is included in the regulations, that in every case referred to paragraph (a) or (b)(ii) there will come a point in the process when a selection has to be accepted, either unconditionally or subject only to matters such as the selected person’s willingness and availability, by or on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice.(2) The regulations may in particular— (a) provide for process additional to the selection process applied under paragraph 4(4), including post-acceptance process;(b) make provision as to things that are, or as to things that are not, to be done—(i) as part of the selection process applied under paragraph 4(4), or(ii) in determining what that process is to be;(c) provide for paragraph 4(4)(c) not to apply where, or to the extent that, the Commission decides that the selection process applied under paragraph 4(4) has not identified candidates of sufficient merit for it to comply with paragraph 4(4)(c);(d) give powers to the Lord Chief Justice, including—(i) power to require a selection panel to reconsider a selection under paragraph 4(4) or any subsequent selection,(ii) power to reject a selection under paragraph 4(4) or any subsequent selection, and(iii) power to require the reconsideration of a decision mentioned in paragraph (c);(e) provide for particular action to be taken by the Commission or a selection panel after the panel has complied with paragraph 4;(f) provide for the dissolution of a selection panel appointed under paragraph 4;(g) provide for a person to cease to be a member of such a panel where the person’s membership of the panel ceases to contribute to meeting a requirement about the panel’s members;(h) provide for a person to become a member of such a panel where another person ceases to be a member of the panel or where another person’s membership of the panel ceases to contribute to meeting a requirement about the panel’s members;(i) make provision for or in connection with assessments, whether pre-acceptance or post-acceptance, of the health of persons selected;(j) provide for the Lord Chief Justice to nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise functions given to the Lord Chief Justice by the regulations;(k) make provision as to the meaning of “non-legally-qualified” and “judicial member” in paragraph 4(3).(3) Regulations under this paragraph—(a) may make different provision for different purposes;(b) may make transitory, transitional or saving provision.(4) The power to make regulations under this paragraph is exercisable by statutory instrument.A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 8.Withdrawal and modification of requests
8 (1) The Lord Chief Justice may withdraw a request under paragraph 2(5)—(a) with the agreement of the Welsh Ministers, or(b) if, after consulting Welsh Ministers, the Lord Chief Justice considers the selection process determined by the selection panel is not satisfactory, or has not been applied satisfactorily.(2) The Lord Chief Justice may modify a request under paragraph 2(5) with the agreement of the Welsh Ministers. (3) If a request is withdrawn in part or modified, the selection panel may, if it thinks it appropriate because of the withdrawal or modification, change any selection already made pursuant to the request, except a selection already accepted.(4) The Lord Chief Justice may not withdraw a request under sub-paragraph (1)(b) if a selection made pursuant to the request—(a) has been accepted unconditionally or subject only to matters such as the selected person’s willingness and availability, or(b) in exercise of power conferred by regulations under paragraph 7, has been rejected or required to be reconsidered.(5) Any withdrawal or modification of a request must be by notice in writing to the Commission.(6) In the case of a withdrawal of a request, the notice must state whether it is under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b).(7) In the case of a withdrawal under sub-paragraph (1)(b), the notice must state why the Lord Chief Justice considers the selection process determined by the selection panel is not satisfactory, or has not been applied satisfactorily.(8) If or to the extent that a request is withdrawn—(a) the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule cease to apply in relation to it;(b) any selection made on it is to be disregarded.(9) Withdrawal of a request to any extent does not affect the power of the Lord Chief Justice to make another request in the same or different terms.Effect of acceptance of selection
9 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, where the Lord Chief Justice accepts a selection made under paragraph 4(4) he or she must appoint the person selected.(2) Before making the appointment the Lord Chief Justice may direct the Commission to make arrangements in accordance with the direction—(a) for any assessment of the health of the person selected that the Lord Chief Justice considers appropriate, and(b) for a report of the assessment to be made to the Lord Chief Justice.(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies in any of the following circumstances—(a) the Lord Chief Justice notifies the Commission that he or she is not satisfied on the basis of a report under sub-paragraph (2)(b), having consulted the Welsh Ministers, that the health of the person selected is satisfactory for the purposes of the appointment;(b) the person selected declines to be appointed, or does not agree within a time specified to him for that purpose;(c) the person selected is otherwise not available within a reasonable time to be appointed.(4) Where this sub-paragraph applies—(a) the selection accepted and any previous selection for the appointment are to be disregarded;(b) the request pursuant to which the selection was made continues to have effect;(c) any subsequent selection pursuant to that request may be made in accordance with the same or a different selection process.PART 3TERMS OF OFFICETenure, removal, resignation etc
10 (1) If— (a) a person is appointed to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals on terms that provide for him or her to retire from the office at a particular time specified in those terms (“the end of the fixed term”), and(b) the end of the fixed term is earlier than the time at which the person is required by the 1993 Act to retire from the office,the person shall, if still holding the office at the end of the fixed term, vacate the office at the end of the fixed term.(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) (and to the 1993 Act), a person appointed to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals holds that office during good behaviour, subject to a power of removal by Her Majesty on an address presented to Her by both Houses of Parliament.(3) It is for the Lord Chancellor to recommend to Her Majesty the exercise of the power of removal under sub-paragraph (2).(4) In this paragraph “the 1993 Act” means the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.11 A person who holds the office of President of Welsh Tribunals may at any time resign that office by giving the Lord Chief Justice notice in writing to that effect.12 (1) The Lord Chief Justice, if satisfied by means of a medical certificate that a person holding the office of President of Welsh Tribunals—(a) is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of the office, and(b) is for the time being incapacitated from resigning the office,may, subject to sub-paragraph (2), by instrument under his or her hand declare the person to have vacated the office; and the instrument has the equivalent effect for all purposes as if the person had on the date of the instrument resigned the office.(2) A declaration under sub-paragraph (1) with respect to a person is of no effect unless it is made with the concurrence of—(a) the Lord Chancellor, and(b) the Welsh Ministers.Remuneration, allowances and expenses
13 The Welsh Ministers may pay to the President of Welsh Tribunals whatever amounts they determine in respect of—(a) remuneration;(b) allowances;(c) expenses.Oaths
14 (1) A person appointed to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals must take the required oaths in the presence of—(a) the Lord Chief Justice, or(b) another holder of high judicial office (as defined in section 60(2) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) who is nominated by the Lord Chief Justice for the purpose of taking the oaths from the person.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether or not the person has previously taken the required oaths after accepting another office.(3) In this paragraph “the required oaths” means—(a) the oath of allegiance, and(b) the judicial oath,as set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.”
“6A In section 116M (duty to disclose information on Welsh land transactions to HMRC), in subsection (1), for “A person who is a member of the Welsh Government” substitute “The Welsh Revenue Authority”.”
“( ) section 6A(11);( ) section 6B(5) and (7);”
“( ) section 6A(11);( ) section 6B(5) and (7);”
“Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8)
48A In Schedule 5 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (retirement provisions: the relevant offices), after the entry for the Senior President of Tribunals insert—“President of Welsh Tribunals”.”
“52A In section 77 of that Act (adjudications) omit subsection (5).”
“Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4)
55A In section 109 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (disciplinary powers: interpretation), in subsection (5), after paragraph (da) insert— “(db) President of Welsh Tribunals;”.”
“Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11)
56A In section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (confidentiality), in subsection (2)(j), for “the Welsh Ministers” substitute “the Welsh Revenue Authority”.”
“Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c. 15)
59A(1) Section 47 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (co-operation in relation to judicial training, guidance and welfare) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (4)(a) and (b), after “the Senior President of Tribunals” insert “or the President of Welsh Tribunals”.(3) In subsection (5)(c)—(a) omit “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (iii);(b) at the end insert “, or(v) a judge, or other member, of a tribunal listed in section (The Welsh tribunals) of the Wales Act 2016 (the Welsh tribunals).””
“Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 (nawm 1)
82A In the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 omit section 124 (practice directions).”
“The Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/ 322 (W.53))
83AA In the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales Regulations 2012 omit regulation 28 (general powers).”
“(1A) Subsections (2) to (7) are subject to subsection (1B).(1B) The following provisions may not come into force until the Welsh Assembly has passed a legislative consent motion in respect of this Act—(a) sections 1 to 52,(b) section 53(1), and(c) Schedules 1 to 5.”
“(e) section 41, and sections 37(4) and (6) and 40(4) for the purposes of section 41.”
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 23rd November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 View all Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 74KB) - (21 Nov 2016)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how pleased I am to bring this Bill to the Floor of the House for the first time. The reforms contained in it support business in driving economic growth and they will help the Government deliver their manifesto commitment to make the UK the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas and set up and expand a business. The Bill’s provisions will make the intellectual property system more easily navigable for rights holders and third parties alike. It will help ensure that rights holders can enforce their IP rights fairly, while preventing the misuse of threats to sue for infringement as a way to distort competition.
As noble Lords will be aware, the detailed recommendations for reform in this area were made by the Law Commission, and I thank it warmly for its thorough and detailed approach to this project, including extensive stakeholder consultation, which has brought the Bill to this House in such good shape.
The Bill has a narrow scope and follows the special Bill procedure available for uncontroversial Law Commission reforms. This procedure included a number of very informative evidence sessions during Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the chair of the Special Public Bill Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, who is unable to be in his seat today, and colleagues on the committee, several of whom are here this evening, for their time and efforts in considering the Bill thus far. Our discussions have been productive and helpful.
The first group of amendments addresses concerns raised by both stakeholders and members of the committee. I believe that they improve the clarity of the provisions, which is a key aim of the Bill as a whole. The first of the amendments would delete “solely” from new Section 70B(1)(a), and the equivalent sections for the other rights. The Law Society has long pushed for this amendment. Both CIPA and the IP Federation also agreed, at the evidence stage, that the term should be removed. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for raising this point during Committee and for emphasising its importance to stakeholders. The intent of the person sending a communication is not relevant in determining whether that communication is “permitted”. This has always been our position and the amendment makes it even clearer.
The second family of amendments in this group also relates to the permitted communications provisions. A common complaint is that, under the existing threats law, there is no guidance on what type of communication is allowed and what is not. It is therefore easy for rights holders inadvertently to fall foul of the threats provisions.
The subsections in issue provide guidance on what types of information are necessary for a permitted communication by providing a list of examples. However, it has become apparent that these subsections are not as clear as they should be. The amendments make it clear that the examples will always be considered necessary for a permitted purpose. A rights holder who wishes to make a permitted communication may confidently provide the types of information listed. The list is also clearly non-exclusive, so appropriate flexibility is provided.
The next amendment addresses an issue raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in Committee. The issue relates to what he termed a “piece of illogic” in new Section 70C(4) and equivalents regarding the reference to “T”, curiously used to refer to the person who made the threat. To solve this problem, we have simply opted to remove the reference altogether and substitute it with a reference to the person, which, given its context, clearly means the person who made the threat.
Finally, I come to the fourth set of amendments in this group. These seek to amend new Section 70E and equivalents to clarify the position in relation to pending rights, particularly with reference to the justification defence available to the rights holder. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, highlighted in Committee, expert stakeholders have concerns with the current drafting on this point. This family of amendments—a term that the noble Baroness kindly invented in Committee—addresses these concerns by stating explicitly that the question of whether there has been an infringement will be determined on the basis of the IP right once it has been registered or granted. I hope that this deals neatly with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on this issue.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Saville of Newdigate, who chaired the Special Public Bill Committee, how much he regrets that he is not able to be present at this stage of the Bill. He has authorised me to say that he, having read all the amendments, fully supports them. The fact that they have been brought before the House in this way indicates the hard work that the committee did, and the Bill will no doubt be greatly improved by their being moved.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, we had some extraordinary things on this committee: a Saville committee that ran to time and a Minister who listened, took her conclusions back to her department and the Law Commission, and achieved a most satisfactory series of amendments. That is an achievement that ranks with the dervishes breaking a British square. That the Law Commission should have given in to suggestions from the House of Lords really shows what a fine Minister we have and what a fine job she has done on this Bill. All of us who sat through the committee—who thought we might be doing it all to achieve nothing—are enormously grateful to her.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister and must declare my interests as a retired chartered and European patent attorney, former fellow of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and former representative before the European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office; and that my husband has residual income from our former practice, and that we are proprietors of a registered trademark. That all means that I have had to send and receive the sort of correspondence that the Bill is all about.
The Minister has proposed amendments in this group and elsewhere that touch on most of the points on which I tabled amendments and spoke in Committee. The only points not touched on at all concern the proposed new section defining actionable threats, and I have not tabled similar amendments again, as these were perhaps overly substantive for this stage of a Law Commission Bill. That is a pity but, nevertheless, I have had the opportunity to elaborate on those points in Committee for the public record, and people can take note of what will remain problems.
With regard to Amendments 1, 2 and 4 for patents and the corresponding changes to the clauses for trademarks and designs, I agree that the deletion of “solely”, and clarifying the examples, make the safe harbour that is intended for permitted communications clearer and the accidental triggering of threats provisions less likely. I need say no more on that. I am grateful for the other drafting amendments on numbering and with reference to pending rights, which I raised.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure we will find when we examine the fine print that there is probably a prohibition in the Companion on making the sorts of speeches we have been hearing. That makes me even more determined to make them. It is right that we should record that the special procedures we went through for the Bill, although recognisably a labour—no pun intended—have generated a very successful outcome. I join others in congratulating our chair, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, who got us through some interesting and tricky evidence sessions with great expediency and, as was said, on time.
I also congratulate the Minister, whom I recall making her first appearance at the Dispatch Box on an intellectual property Bill—“flustered” is perhaps too strong a word, but it certainly was not her natural habitat. But the feathers have grown and the plumage has become much more sleek and groomed, and now we have somebody who is fully equipped to deal with all matters of intellectual property. As has been said, those of us who have been involved with intellectual property Bills before have had not much success in getting changes, but she has come back with a raft of improvements to the Bill. Against the Law Commission, as has been said, you can say no finer than that.
It was a pleasure having an expert member on the committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. It is always a bit of a worry when you see somebody on a committee who knows a lot about the subject, because you think they may dominate it. She was indeed very powerful in her contributions, but they were to a point and finely judged. We all learned and benefited from that.
We have done extremely well, and the Minister has achieved a great deal and kept us informed. We had a letter only this week explaining what the proposals were and how they fitted into her thinking, and I am happy to support them.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their kind and constructive comments. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we all learned a lot. These provisions are indeed an improvement.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to address concerns raised in Committee about the practical application of the new threats provisions. These changes amend the discretion afforded to judges in applying the new permitted communication provisions and improve the ability to access the defences available. Both these changes particularly help to address concerns expressed about the challenges of working in an online trading environment.
I turn first to Amendment 3 and its family. The provisions as drafted allow that the courts may treat another, additional purpose as a permitted purpose if that is necessary in the interests of justice. I have now had the opportunity to consider the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and to reflect further on the evidence given by Mr Justice Birss, Professor Sir Robin Jacob and others to the Special Public Bill Committee regarding the extent of the judges’ discretion in this area. By removing the word “necessary”, these amendments provide additional flexibility to the courts when considering whether a particular communication was made for a permitted purpose. The provisions still give clarity and certainty for those using the system, which is a key requirement for all stakeholders.
The wider discretion afforded to the courts under this amendment allows them to add to the list of permitted communications when appropriate. This would include treating the use of an online form as permitted, if that is suitable in the particular circumstances. This amendment, therefore, helps to address concerns raised about the use of particular online forms.
The next family of amendments relates to the defence available to rights holders, whereby they are allowed to send a threat to a trader, or other secondary actor, who is not the source of the alleged infringement, if a search for the primary actor has been unsuccessful. The amendments deal with two issues discussed in Committee. There were concerns that, first, the bar was set too high to access the defence, and, secondly, this was particularly problematic for rights holders dealing with potential infringements in an online trading environment. Under the current patents law, the test is that the rights holder must have used “best endeavours” to find the source but failed. During the Law Commission’s work, the “best endeavours” requirement was the subject of much criticism. As a result, the phrase “all reasonable steps” was used in the Bill. However, in evidence taken by the Special Public Bill Committee, this phrasing was also described as being too onerous.
As the BBC explained in its evidence, in the face of high-volume, low-value online infringements, the requirement to use “all reasonable steps” would be disproportionate and burdensome. It was therefore suggested that the word “all” should be left out. Compelling arguments were also put forward by the committee’s distinguished chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. On reflection, I agree that “all reasonable steps” does place the bar too high. The amendment would instead require the rights holder to simply take “reasonable steps” to find the source of the infringement. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. The assessment can take account of what it is reasonable for the rights holder to do in an online environment, and what is reasonable in the economic circumstances of the case.
There is a balance here. We need to ensure that we restrict potentially damaging unjustified threats but also that rights holders can take action to tackle infringement online when they need to. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, after being on the committee entrusted by the House with scrutiny of this Bill, I am only too fully aware of what a complex area of law intellectual property is—it is crucial that we get it right. We must ensure that we create a climate as positive as any in the world for businesses to innovate and grow, especially after we leave the European Union.
I thank the Minister for her clear thinking and her ability to make me understand exactly what was going on. I thought when I started that I would never get to the end of it all. However, it was quite amazing: with her experience as a fine civil servant who then transferred over to work in the wild business world, she came back with all kinds of straightforward thinking that I could understand and comply with.
I am confident that the Bill will make a valuable contribution to achieving this goal. It will make it easier for businesses to make legitimate threats to protect their intellectual property and for those businesses subject to unjustified threats to protect themselves. I am particularly glad that the Bill will harmonise the law across different types of intellectual property and make it simpler and cheaper for businesses, especially small businesses, which can often be the most intimidated by threats, to seek legal advice and negotiate before there is a need to involve the courts. The greater clarity created by the new category of permitted communications is most welcome in this regard. The Bill is therefore a significant improvement on the current law and has the potential to make a real difference for businesses in practice.
As a former small business owner who has been subject to threats to sue for intellectual property infringement, a consumer protection representative and a Minister for Intellectual Property, I also understand, however, quite how impenetrable intellectual property law can be for businesses. This is especially the case for small and medium-sized enterprises, which often struggle to understand complex legal points and are least able to afford expert legal advice when they encounter difficulties.
When I was running my small business, I was once contacted by a well-known company in the same industry alleging that I had fringed its intellectual property rights. It turned out that it did not have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view. Nevertheless, the whole episode still caused me and my business a great deal of disruption. While I recognise that I would have been a primary actor for the purposes of this Bill, and therefore not protected by the threats provision, I empathise wholeheartedly with those businesses for which these are crucial protections but for which intellectual property law is incredibly hard to understand.
For this reason, getting the legislation right is only half of the battle. Just as important—perhaps even more so—is how we seek to ensure that businesses understand what is in the Bill and how it helps them in practical terms. If we do not do this properly, we might as well not pass the Bill at all.
While I know from my time as a Minister that the Intellectual Property Office works hard to help businesses understand intellectual property, it needs to ensure that it keeps improving its efforts in this area. It would be unacceptable and a tragedy if even one start-up or SME capitulated to an unjustified threat to sue for intellectual property infringement out of a lack of awareness of the provisions of the Bill once enacted.
I was grateful to the Minister for her comments in Committee on how the Government intend to proceed to make sure that the provisions of the Bill are communicated to business, especially SMEs, so that it has the positive impact in practice that it ought to. However, this is one of the things about which we cannot ever have too much information or too many reassurances. I therefore continue to press the Minister to assist the House and businesses with further reassurances, wherever she can, on this matter.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, would wish me to thank the Minister for moving these amendments.
Two simple words are on the paper in front of us—“necessary” and “or”—but they are constraining words and to remove them from the Bill is a significant step to take. I am particularly interested in the extent to which the noble Baroness is prepared to increase the width of the discretion given to the judges. I can think of many cases where Acts of Parliament have sought to restrict the discretion of the judges because they were not trusted. However, in the area of intellectual property, the cases that come before the courts are in the hands of expert judges and I am sure that taking out the word “necessary” and giving them greater discretion is entirely justified and greatly improves the nature of the legislation under consideration.
I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, in thanking the Minister for taking this step.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for these amendments. I welcome that “necessary” has been removed from the judge’s discretion provision by way of Amendment 3 and its family of amendments. It was a feature of our discussions with witnesses and in Committee that the court’s ability to exercise discretion was important and that the flavour should be that the judge can do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. This is reflected in the simple words “in the interests of justice” without what might have been an unusually high or inflexible hurdle of “necessary”.
On Amendment 6 and its corresponding family, we had significant discussion during evidence sessions relating to the status of take-down notices that are sent to digital platforms and then by the platforms on to vendors. Case law had left a bit of a limbo as to whether these are threats and, if they are, whether the defence that “all reasonable steps” have been taken to find the primary infringer is too high a hurdle, especially in the digital environment, where vendors may be in remote places and it is effectively impossible to trace who may truly be the primary infringer and the customer is, in effect, the importer. Did every lead have to be pursued or, if not, how many?
There is some assistance through the Minister’s amendment that deletes “all”. This makes the defence, if it is needed, a little easier, and the word “reasonable” still retains aspects of proportionality, so the test has not been made too light in other circumstances and can adapt.
However, the amendment does not solve the lacuna of whether a take-down notice is or is not a threat, with two interim judgments—Quads 4 Kids and then Cassie Creations—indicating it was an arguable point but not deciding. This is left, as I said, in limbo.
This is a substantive point—again, too substantive for this stage of a Law Commission Bill—and there is an opportunity to pursue issues relating to digital platforms in the Digital Economy Bill. On these Benches, we are interested in doing that for the status of take-down notices, among other things. I know the Minister can give no promises now but at least it, and how it originated, will be no surprise when the issue returns.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I want briefly to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—my noble and learned kinsman—in expressing my thanks for the way in which these points have been taken, but perhaps I may add a little a gloss to what he said. The way he expressed it was that this is going to aid the generic judge in doing their job more efficiently than would otherwise be the case. However, it is worth recalling that the discussion we had in Committee on this—it was prompted by the evidence we received—turned on the fact that this is quite a key point in trying to perceive within the Bill the evolutionary steps that the Law Commission said existed, as this Bill provides a route forward from where we were in previous times to where we might be in the future in the possibility of establishing a more general tort in relation to business ethics and business behaviour, of which it is arguable that unjustified threats are a very unjustifiable part of the business environment. I know that the Minister shares my thinking on this and I agree with her that this is not the Bill in which to take these issues forward, but I think we both hope that there will be an opportunity to come back to this issue in some future legislation.
The point is an important one. If we see this piece of legislation as a step on a journey towards an alignment that is closer than is currently the case with the Paris convention 1883, we will be in a more satisfactory place to understand and perhaps plan forwards on how these things might happen. Whether that should be in the Digital Economy Bill, which is soon to arrive with us, we do not know, because it is not being dealt with in the Minister’s department any more. However, I am sure that she will take a close interest in it, particularly if the words “intellectual property” are flashed around. I am sure that she will be like a moth to the flame coming back to support us. In the interim, we support these amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for the welcome they have given to the extension of sensible judicial discretion through these amendments. I also warmly thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox for her very kind words and for her strong support for the Bill, particularly from the perspective of someone who has experienced threats as a small business person. She rightly highlighted the importance of providing appropriate guidance and she may be aware that we have already published some guidance to business. The IPO has got up early in terms of what the reforms could mean in practice. I have copies of the guidance if any noble Lord would like one.
In our debate in Committee I happily committed to communicating to businesses the changes and benefits being brought by the introduction of this Bill. They will form an important part of the IPO’s work and its outreach programme. I know that my noble friend is keen to learn what this would mean in reality, so I can say that the IPO will go the extra mile for SMEs. It will update its popular online tools, publish guidance, add information on the new threats provisions to the range of IP educational materials as appropriate and include presentations about these changes at its outreach events, many of which are of course aimed at SMEs. It will also update businesses via social media channels and signpost users to the relevant guidance. It is crucial that the material produced is clear and accessible, and the IPO will road-test the guidance in draft with small business representatives to ensure that it is understandable. These changes will be communicated direct to SMEs by the IPO as well as by others who provide advice and support to small businesses, which is equally important. The IPO will work with representative bodies to ensure that their members are aware of the reforms. Emails will be sent to those stakeholders who have signed up to receive updates, which will ensure that sources of IP advice such as the patent library network, growth hubs and professional IP advisers are best able to help our SMEs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, repeated some of the concerns that we discussed at length in Committee. I continue to believe that to include online notifications automatically as a permitted purpose would completely undermine the protection from threats which is at the heart of these provisions. It cannot be right that retailers and others lose all protection from threats simply because those threats are made via a particular medium, in this case online. As I have said, submitting an online form normally results in a listing being taken down, so making online forms permitted would not encourage parties in dispute to talk first since the rights holder could, justifiably or not, prevent at a stroke any further trade in an item. The amendments proposed address the issues in the most appropriate way. The wider discretion that we have given to the courts, which I started with, is useful because it allows the law to evolve as, for example, technology moves on so that over time it can be applied in a clear, fair and appropriate way. In addition we have made defences more readily available to rights holders who need to approach a secondary actor.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about online and reference was made to the Digital Economy Bill, which all being well will come before this House on 13 December. We have two amendments today to improve the online situation and I feel that we have addressed the concerns raised in Committee and by the BBC. The amended clauses should therefore be allowed to run. Further, it is only fair to say that we do not have any plans to revisit the issue in the Digital Economy Bill when it comes to this House.
We have made some significant changes to the Bill in response to the concerns that were well expressed in Committee and I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the amendments before them.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for joining me in tabling this amendment and its parallel amendments in later parts of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister, when she comes to respond, will point out that, as phrased, the amendment does not achieve what I hope to draw out from her in the discussion. In that sense it is a probing amendment, which is probably inappropriate, but nevertheless it was the only way we could think of to get this thing up at this stage.
As the Minister said in Committee, the tactic of suing a professional adviser for making a threat has been used to disrupt negotiations and hamper legitimate client-adviser relationships. A professional adviser should not have to become personally involved in a threats action when they act only on behalf of their client. I accept that the Bill as drafted restricts the protection available to professional advisers to those who are regulated by a statutory regulatory body or entitled to legal professional privilege, but we already have in the Bill provisions under which the professional adviser may rely on the safe harbour provisions to avoid personal liability. Maybe there are other ways that other safeguards could be built into the Bill, such as when it is clear that the threat is speculative and when the principal and the adviser are clearly adopting a game of bluff with the alleged infringer, and so should, by rights, be at risk. I would certainly be happy to engage in discussions with the IPO and the Minister on this point if there was willingness to take it further.
I accept that exempting professional advisers from the threats provision has long been called for and that it would help stop game playing. However, to my mind this is a step too far. The Bill delivers an exemption that provides for the first time in English law that an agent would not be liable for following the specific instructions of his or her principal. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I tabled the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I have a few additional comments that bear some relationship to what the effect of the word “specific” would be in this position.
The fact that advisers could themselves be liable has been, at least in some circumstances, a gatekeeper to check on the appropriateness of communications concerning infringement of intellectual property rights. It has also created other problems, hence the exemption that has been put forward in the Bill. We took evidence to establish that at least in the UK there are disciplinary provisions for wayward professionals, which assists in that gatekeeping, but here we are exempting advisers worldwide. I remain a little concerned as to whether the definition of “exempted adviser” is too widely drawn, but it seemed that there was another way to ensure some element of the gatekeeping is there to make sure the instructions to the adviser are specific.
An adviser overstepping the mark or not warning their client of the consequences of an unjustified threat could well be on the receiving end of a negligence action, but it is a bit grey as to what that instruction might need to be. Could it be a blanket instruction to “go get ‘em”, or to be trigger-happy without discussion about a whole portfolio of rights? The amendment aims to make it clear that specific, conscious instructions are needed, and that due care and attention to that takes place whoever and wherever the adviser may be. It also carries with it the flavour—this needs to be said and recorded—that the exempting of advisers is a particular exemption, not a “get out of jail free” card. Care still has to be taken over the composition and sending of letters or notices that allege infringement.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am fairly new to this argument as unfortunately I was not able to be present as a member of the committee. Judges faced with the nature of this clause, in looking at the word “instructions”, would give the word a purposive meaning and would tend to look for a specific instruction as a necessary condition even if the words were not expressed in the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, I respectfully suggest that the amendment moved by my noble kinsman has great force behind it. One would want to put the matter beyond doubt. For what it is worth, I support the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I understand that this is an area of concern. I welcome the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I very much appreciate the noble Lord’s constructive approach to the Bill and his commitment to careful scrutiny. I think he said the amendment was probing in nature. I will start by setting out why I remain convinced that the exemption for professional advisers is so necessary, before talking about the specific amendment.
The Law Commission’s consultation demonstrated that the tactic of suing a professional adviser for making a threat has been used to hamper the legitimate client-adviser relationship. This causes problems not only for the adviser but for the client, who may as a result need to find a new adviser. I believe we heard convincingly during the evidence stages that this is a significant and common issue. It leaves rights holders in the position of having to pay indemnities before a legal adviser will write an entirely justified letter on their behalf. SMEs are more likely to be asked for such indemnities and are most affected by them.
I am aware that there were concerns regarding such an exemption, which might give rise to an increase in the use of unscrupulous threats. However, I do not agree for the following reasons. Where the professional adviser is exempt, the instructing client will remain liable. This ensures that recourse is available to those damaged by threats. A legal adviser who advises their client badly, leaving them liable for threats, risks a negligence action. The exemption does not prevent this. The exemption has been carefully and appropriately limited in its availability. The amendment would restrict the protection available for professional advisers to just those who are acting on “specific” instructions from another person.
In an increasingly global market—that was mentioned —we need to capture the many different types of foreign and domestic IP legal practitioner who may risk facing a threats action under UK law. As discussed in Committee, this should clearly include those in private practice as well as “in-house” advisers. For that reason, I do not agree that the exemption principle should apply only to the very limited category of circumstances envisaged by the amendment.
In practice, instructions come in all shapes and forms, written and oral. It is therefore unclear what would be required in order to demonstrate that an adviser was acting on a “specific” instruction. Such lack of clarity about “specific” instructions would be particularly problematic for in-house legal advisers, who are often acting on a general mandate to protect their company’s IP rights. The Law Commission agrees that the amendment risks leaving in-house advisers without protection. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson: I think that that is the response that he was expecting in relation to the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank those noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. It is right that we recognise that there are particularities in relation to in-house lawyers and I take the point made by the Minister that the exemption would be particularly useful for them. It does not get round the fact that this could easily be the thin end of the wedge. While that should not detract from the specifics of what we are discussing today, it would be odd if a very small part of a very small part of the law—while I in no sense diminish the contribution made by this Bill to the greater good—was to be adapted to allow this exemption, which then spread.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
It may be clearer if I make one final point. My understanding is that the underlying law on agent liability is left undisturbed, so no precedent is being set here for other areas of law which concern agent-client relationships. I recall that being a concern expressed by the noble Lord, so perhaps my making that clear to the House will help him in agreeing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Yes. The Minister anticipated exactly what I was going to say. We were all looking for some words of reassurance so that those who had to interpret the provisions later would be better informed. We have not had the chance to see the Explanatory Memorandum in that regard. Perhaps we could receive that in correspondence before the final stages of the Bill, so that I might be more satisfied. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Where the threat of infringement proceedings is made after an application has been published (but before grant) the reference in section 70C(3) to “the patent” is to be treated as a reference to the patent as granted in pursuance of that application.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Where the threat of infringement proceedings is made after an application for registration has been published (but before registration) the reference in section 21C(2) to “the registered trade mark” is to be treated as a reference to the trade mark registered in pursuance of that application.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(1B) In the application of section 21C in relation to a European Union trade mark in a case where the threat of infringement proceedings is made after an application has been published (but before registration) the reference in section 21C(2) to “the registered trade mark” is to be treated as a reference to the European Union trade mark registered in pursuance of that application.”
“(3) In the application of section 21C in relation to an international trade mark (EC) in a case where the threat of infringement proceedings is made after particulars have been published (but before registration) the reference in section 21C(2) to “the registered trade mark” is to be treated as a reference to the international trade mark (EC) registered in pursuance of those particulars.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Where the threat of infringement proceedings is made after an application for registration has been made (but before registration) the reference in section 26C(2) to “the registered design” is to be treated as a reference to the design registered in pursuance of that application.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Where the threat of infringement proceedings is made after an application for registration has been filed (but before registration) the reference in regulation 2C(2) to “the Community design” is to be treated as a reference to the design registered in pursuance of that application.”