House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
The persistence and ingenuity of those who would threaten us with cyber- attacks mean that we need to work even harder to keep pace with the threat. That is why we recently launched our five-year national cyber-security strategy—supported by £1.9 billion of investment—in which we set out ambitious steps to respond to that increasing cyber-threat.
Mike Freer
Many local firms struggle to afford the very best in cyber-protection. Will the Minister explain what more the Government could do to share their expertise so that local small and medium-sized enterprises could benefit from their experience?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is a regrettable fact that, increasingly, cyber-security is an essential part of normal business operations. That is why we are trying to make it easier for small businesses. We have a new Cyber Essentials scheme, which helps businesses to understand what they need to do to protect themselves. We have a cyber exchange, which provides information about organisations and businesses, and directories that can help small businesses. We also have Action Fraud, which is the mechanism by which businesses can report malicious activity.
David Mackintosh
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that as well as protecting the nation’s vital infrastructure from cyber-attacks, the Government are taking appropriate steps to protect businesses and individuals from the threat of such attacks?
Ben Gummer
I can reassure the House. My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of wider threats to infrastructure, and that was the purpose behind the setting up of the National Cyber Security Centre, where we bring together all the expertise across Government to make sure that we are protecting our national infrastructure. I am confident that we will be able to do that to a world-leading capacity.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that Russian cyber-attacks had an impact on the US election, and that Russian bombing in Syria had an impact on Brexit. What assessment has MI5 made of cyber-attacks in relation to the Brexit output and, indeed, the Scottish referendum?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on the operational details of what the security agencies are doing, but he should be reassured that our agencies have some of the best capacities and capabilities in the world. They are being funded appropriately, we are making sure that they are doing what they need to do, and they are doing what they need to do.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
A cyber-attack earlier this month affecting several internet service providers resulted in more than 100,000 people across the UK losing their connection. With the economy becoming ever more reliant on digital infrastructure, what further resilience measures are the Government putting in place to protect not only businesses but consumers from such targeted attacks?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady is entirely right to point out the increasing threat, not only to organisations but to individuals as they live their normal lives. That is why the National Cyber Security Centre has been set up to engage with businesses very early—both on a proactive and a preventive basis, but also when there is a cyber-attack, as in the case that she cited—to ensure that customers are alerted early, that something is done to protect them, and that we learn from such attacks and make sure that they do not happen again in other parts of the economy.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Ben Gummer
We are. It would not be for me to add to the words of the director general of the Secret Intelligence Service, but it is important that we protect the integrity of our democracy. My hon. Friend can be assured that all agencies in this country are apprised of the necessity of doing precisely that.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
In the light of the Russian intervention in the US election and the credible threats to the German election recognised by Chancellor Merkel, will the Minister give the House a guarantee that no cyber-attacks have been carried out on the UK that could have impacted on our democracy? Will he also inform the House what measures, in addition to the cyber-security strategy, his Government will be implementing to defend the UK from such attacks in the future?
Ben Gummer
I am gratified by the fact that the Electoral Commission says that our register is one of the most accurate and secure in the world, but we clearly need to protect the entire integrity of the democratic process. That is why all security agencies will be making sure that our systems are as secure as possible. I am grateful to the people working in the National Cyber Security Centre for the work they do—a lot of it is very difficult and technical—which is why we are better protected than most countries around the world. I intend to make sure that that capability and capacity improve and increase.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
Single departmental plans represent the Government’s planning and performance management framework. SDPs help the Cabinet Office to ensure that Departments deliver the Government’s key priorities, track progress against manifesto commitments and encourage greater efficiencies in Government.
Helen Whately
The five-year forward view for mental health encourages the Cabinet Office to oversee cross-Government implementation of proposals. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that mental health is a priority for each Department?
Ben Gummer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which I know is very close to her heart and is one in which she has expertise. It is very important that we co-ordinate this matter across Government because it is not just a matter for the Department of Health, although I should say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking this as a personal issue, as is the Prime Minister. Our purpose in the Cabinet Office is to make sure that the decisions and recommendations that the Prime Minister will make in due course are implemented across Government, so that there is a response from across the Government by the whole of the Government to something that affects everyone in this country.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister referred to the benefits of joined-up and efficient Government. For those benefits to be seen and enjoyed by citizens across the United Kingdom, will he make a commitment to ongoing discussions with all the devolved legislatures to ensure that best practice is seen and enjoyed by everyone, irrespective of where they live in the UK?
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
Special advisers play an important part in supporting Ministers to deliver their priorities. The Government are committed to making the most efficient use of public money. As part of that, we will keep under review the cost of the civil service, which includes special advisers.
Philip Boswell
The Prime Minister has introduced a salary cap for special advisers, but The Times has reported that her own special advisers are not subject to the cap. How do the Government plan to reassure the public that the costs of special advisers are being controlled?
Chris Skidmore
We are required by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to publish an annual report on the number and cost of special advisers, and we will publish an updated list shortly. We will provide information about the pay bands of special advisers, as well as the actual salaries of the more senior ones. We will also provide the total pay bill for special advisers and severance costs, including the severance payments made to the special advisers who recently left the Government.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
The Government are clear that the House of Lords cannot continue to grow indefinitely. However, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not a priority for this Parliament, as set out in the Government’s manifesto, given the number of pressing priorities—hon. Members know what they are—elsewhere. Of course, where measures can command consensus across the House, the Government will welcome working with peers to look at how to take them forward.
Jeff Smith
Even the House of Lords now thinks the House of Lords is too big, so how can it be the Government’s priority to reduce the elected house by 50 Members, when under David Cameron the Lords expanded by 260?
Chris Skidmore
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the excellent debate that took place in the other place on 5 December, in which 61 noble Members took part over six hours. It was clear that there was a consensus among all political parties, as there is a consensus among all political parties in this House, that the size of the Lords is an issue that will have to be addressed. Our manifesto commitment set out very clearly that it was not a priority. When it comes to the boundary changes, our manifesto commitment to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600 is critical as it will save £66 million across a Parliament and, crucially, equalise constituencies that for decades have remained unequal.
Mr Speaker
I do not think anyone is concerned about the size of Lords, but possibly they are about the size of the House of Lords. It is quite important to be accurate about these matters.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while reform of the House of Lords might not be a priority at the moment, if their lordships try to frustrate the will of the British people over Brexit, reform of the House of Lords should become a top priority?
Chris Skidmore
I refer again to the debate that took place last week, in which an interesting consensus developed. Baroness Evans, the Leader of the House of Lords, said in her summing up:
“It is right that we collectively seek a solution to address concerns about the size of this House raised today while ensuring we continue to refresh and renew our expertise and our outlook so we remain relevant to the Britain of today and the future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 2016; Vol. 777, c. 590.]
The House of Lords has a critical part in our constitution as a revising Chamber, and I hope that will continue.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Last week, we witnessed the outrageous spectacle of Tory peers trying to filibuster plans that would have removed the archaic charade of the hereditary peer by-election that takes place in the House of Lords, in which a small number of privileged Lords decide which among their number will join that legislature. Does the Minister not agree that that makes a laughing stock of the House of Lords and underlines the need for this House to engage in serious plans for reform?
Chris Skidmore
It is a shame that there were no SNP Members of the House of Lords taking part in that debate because that party refuses to engage in the democratic process and lets down the people of Scotland by not allowing them adequate representation. Talking about frustrating processes, there was a vote in 2014 in which 2 million people voted to remain as part of the UK, but that party over there continues to frustrate the will of the Scottish people.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure the Minister shares my disappointment that when there was an opportunity to reform the House of Lords in Government time in this Chamber, the main Opposition party decided to frustrate it. Does he agree that any reform of the size and composition of the Lords needs to be linked to wider reform that delivers a whole package, and should not just set a particular number on the membership?
Chris Skidmore
What is important is that reform of the House of Lords is led by the Lords themselves. As the debate last week showed, there is clearly an appetite for that. We have had significant reforms, including on the retirement of peers, which has seen about 50 peers retire. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House of Lords said at the end of the debate that she would consider
“whether a more immediate, practical step could be taken in convening a small, Back Bench-led consultative group whose work could be overseen, for instance, by the Lord Speaker.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 2016; Vol. 777, c. 591.]
I look forward to hearing more about the development of those plans.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
How can the Government justify having more than 800 unelected Members of the House of the Lords and reducing the elected House of Commons from 650 Members to 600? There are that many people in the House of Lords that they are running short of toilets.
Chris Skidmore
I am not sure about the toilets issue, but the Labour peer, Baroness Taylor of Bolton—a colleague of the hon. Gentleman with whom I am sure he often agrees—commented that while there are 845 Members of the House of Lords, average attendance is around 497. I am not sure what that does to the situation with the toilets.
Let us come back to the boundary changes. The hon. Gentleman has been around for a long time. He knows that when we look at the size of the constituencies in this House, we see that some have 95,000 constituents and some have 38,000. That discrepancy was first picked up on by the Chartists—he may have been around at that time. Two hundred years ago, a working-class organisation demanded change and we are the party that will deliver it.
Mr Speaker
We are very grateful to the Minister for his history lesson, which I accept he is in a good position to provide, but we must move on.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We have heard a great many words from the Minister. Why can he not understand that it is simply untenable to have a bloated revising Chamber with substantially more Members than this elected Chamber? This comes at a time when, as we have heard, he is ploughing ahead with his plans to reduce the size of this place. He might not think that reform of the House of Lords is a priority, but their lordships do, so what is he going to do about it?
Chris Skidmore
As I stated in a previous answer, it is up to the House of Lords to command cross-party consensus in that House. Labour Members of the Lords are willing to get involved with that. But let us talk about priorities, as the language of priorities is the language of politics. Our priority is to ensure that we deliver the will of the British people in leaving the European Union. The Labour party’s priorities seem to be frustrating the Brexit process and demanding we take up our entire legislative time reforming the House of Lords. If we are looking at who should be getting their priorities straight, the hon. Gentleman should look at himself.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
In our manifesto we committed to ensuring that digital assistance is always available to those not online in the delivery of online Government services. All services will have a means of access for those not able to use the online service.
Edward Argar
I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend’s answer. He rightly continues to improve access to Government services online. Will he ensure that that is done in a way that avoids excluding or disadvantaging those who, for whatever reason, are unable to access such services?
Ben Gummer
I am able to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We have travelled a great distance in the past six years, and access to online services is immeasurably better now than back in 2010. But we want to make sure that everyone is able to gain access to Government services and will provide alternative routes to them if they cannot do so online.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that online access has to be of the highest quality. The experience of some Departments has not been very reassuring. There are very talented people on the autism spectrum who are very good at this. Will the Minister look at recruiting many of them to help make online services better?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to former failures of accessibility in online services; direct.gov.uk was appalling for accessibility. We now make sure that all services are accessible by design, but I will repeat his comments to the Government Digital Service for its interest.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Ben Gummer
It is proceeding well, but not well enough, and I want it to be faster.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
When I look online, I find it is almost impossible to get a physical address to write to from a Government website. Is that deliberate?
Ben Gummer
It is not, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to show me the examples I will make sure that they are corrected.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Ben Gummer
We are already the world leader. We have the finest Government digital services in the world. It is not just us saying that but comparable organisations around the world. But we can still do better, and there is a great deal that I want to do. I urge my hon. Friend to look out for the forthcoming strategy on this precise matter.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
The purpose of the Cabinet Office is to deliver a democracy that works for everyone, to support the design and delivery of Government policy, and to deliver efficiencies and reforms to make Government work better.
Mr Carswell
Since 2008, many Select Committees have held pre-appointment hearings for aspiring quangocrats. Will the Minister consider making it routine for Select Committees to hold formal confirmation hearings, especially when the position requires substantial control over taxpayer money?
Ben Gummer
I am not quite sure why the hon. Gentleman needs to phrase every question he asks with an insult. I know that he should look closely at our work on ensuring that Select Committees have even more influence in scrutinising Government policy. I will take his careful and wise comments on board.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
I am delighted to say that last week I published the draft Public Service Ombudsman Bill, which will modernise the complaints system for public services. As my hon. Friend says, it sets out how we will create a single point of contact, make the system simpler and more efficient and give the new ombudsman a wider role in championing improvements in complaints handling.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister will no doubt be aware of the 2014 Electoral Commission survey that found that 7.4 million people were missing from the electoral register—young people were identified as being particularly under-represented—so will he commit to introducing a schools registration scheme along the lines of the initiative in Northern Ireland, which has resulted in an increase in the number of young people registered to vote?
Chris Skidmore
As part of our commitment to a democracy that works for everyone, I have been touring the country and investigating how we can get more young people actively engaged in politics, and I held a roundtable with youth organisations last week to discuss our strategy, but the Northern Ireland example is not something we wish to take forward, as the idea of compulsion on schools does not work. I have learned that there must be local ownership of schemes to ensure that civil society groups can encourage young people to join the register when they turn 18.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Ben Gummer
We are making very good progress with the audit, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. As the Prime Minister said on the steps of Downing Street,
“If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.”
That is why we are looking at these disparities so carefully in our racial disparities audit.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Ben Gummer
I regret the experience that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent had. We have set up a group to look after victims of cybercrime called Action Fraud, to which his constituent should attend first, and we have ensured that the National Cyber Security Centre provides a personal service to businesses, but I am happy to take up his particular issue personally to make sure it is corrected.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that sometimes a cyber-attack is inadvertent and that The Register and other magazines report that a Microsoft download and update has caused a mass disconnection of computers from the internet, particularly among those running Windows 8 and 10? Do the Government have a role in advising people on how that sort of thing can be corrected?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is a far more astute reader of IT journals than I am. We are aware of our responsibilities, which is why we have set up the Cyber Essentials website, but I will relay his comments to those who know more about it than I do so that they can reflect on them.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Chris Skidmore
As I have stated, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring we go forward with consensus in the House of Lords on the reform and size of that House. The debate, which I have outlined already, demonstrated that there was a consensus, and the Leader of the House of Lords is working to established that Committee, as I have said. That is the Government’s approach.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Both Ministers have talked about creating a democracy that works for everyone, so will they look further at making sure that first past the post is rolled out for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections?
Chris Skidmore
I sat in on my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, which I listened to with intent, but while the Government are absolutely committed to first past the post as an electoral system, as set out in our manifesto, we need to ensure that the conduct of elections set out in legislation is carefully managed.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman says it is a devolved matter. It is rightly a devolved matter, and it would not be right for me to comment on it here.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Tomorrow this House will debate the Government’s broadband universal service obligation. Does the Minister agree that we must complement the excellent work of the Government Digital Service with a real commitment to superfast broadband wherever we can take it?
Ben Gummer
It is right, which is why our manifesto was the most ambitious of all the main parties for the roll-out of superfast and ultrafast broadband, and my hon. Friend will hear a lot more about it in the weeks to come.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
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 will have further such meetings later today.
Peter Dowd
May I take the opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Members of the House a merry Christmas and a happy new year?
In the light of the Foreign Secretary’s display of chronic “foot in mouth” disease, when deciding on Cabinet positions, does the Prime Minister now regret that pencilling “FO” against his name should have been an instruction, not a job offer?
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. We have heard the question, but I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing everybody a happy Christmas. I will of course have an opportunity to do that again on Monday, when I am sure the House will be as full for the statement on the European Council meeting. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Funny, that seemed to come from this side of the House but not from the Labour side. I have to say that the Foreign Secretary is doing an absolutely excellent job. He is, in short, an FFS—a fine Foreign Secretary.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Amanda Milling
Rugeley has a really bright future ahead, but only if we are ambitious, bold and visionary in our redevelopment plans. Will my right hon. Friend outline how the Government’s industrial strategy can create the conditions that will help us to build a sustainable local economy and highly skilled jobs for future generations?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that communities across this country have a bright future ahead of them, but we need to ensure that we create the conditions for that future. That is why we will be producing a modern industrial strategy that will show how we can encourage the strategic strengths of the United Kingdom and deal with our underlying weaknesses. It will enable companies to grow, invest in the UK and provide those jobs for the future, but we also need to make sure that that prosperity is spread across the whole of the United Kingdom and is prosperity for everyone.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
May I start by wishing you, Mr Speaker, all Members of the House and everyone who works in the House a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year?
Sadly, our late colleague Jo Cox will not be celebrating Christmas this year with her family. She was murdered and taken from us, so I hope the Prime Minister will join me—I am sure she will—in encouraging people to download the song, which many Members helped to create, as a tribute to Jo’s life and work and in everlasting memory of her.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue. I am sure that everybody in this House would wish to send a very clear message: download this single for the Jo Cox Foundation. It is a very important cause. We all recognise that Jo Cox was a fine Member of this House and would have carried on contributing significantly to this House and to this country, had she not been brutally murdered. It is right that the Chancellor has waived VAT on the single. Everybody involved in it gave their services for free, and I am having a photograph with MP4 later this afternoon. Once again, let us encourage everybody to download the single.
Mr Speaker
For the benefit of those observing our proceedings from outside, I should state that the Prime Minister was, of course, referring to the outstanding parliamentary rock band MP4.
Jeremy Corbyn
I applaud the work of MP4, but for the benefit of air quality I am not a member of it! I thank the Prime Minister for her answer.
Social care is crucial. It provides support for people to live with dignity, yet Age UK research has found that 1.2 million older people are currently not receiving the care they need. Will the Prime Minister accept that there is a crisis in social care?
The Prime Minister
I have consistently said in this House that we recognise the pressures on social care, so it might be helpful if I set out what the Government are doing and the position in relation to social care. As I say, we recognise those pressures. That is why the Government are putting more money into social care through the better care fund, and by the end of this Parliament it will be billions of pounds extra. That is why we have enabled the social care precept for local authorities. We recognise that there are immediate pressures on social care. That is why this will be addressed tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the local government finance settlement. We also recognise that this is not just about money; it is about delivery. There is a difference in delivery across the country. We need to make sure that reform is taking place, so we see best practice in the integration of health and social care across the country. We also need to ensure that we have a longer-term solution to give people reassurance for the future that there is a sustainable system that will ensure that they receive the social care they need in old age. That is what the Government are working on. There is a short-term issue; there is medium-term need to make sure local authorities and the health service are delivering consistently; and there is a long-term solution that we need to find.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Care Quality Commission warned as recently as October that evidence suggests we have approached a tipping point. Instead of passing the buck on to local government, should not the Government take responsibility for the crisis themselves? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to inform the House exactly how much was cut from the social care budget in the last Parliament?
The Prime Minister
We have been putting more money into social care and health. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] We have been putting more money in and, as I say, we recognise the pressures that exist. That is why we are looking at the short-term pressures on social care, but this cannot be looked at as simply being an issue of money in the short term. It is about delivery; it is about reform; it is about the social care system working with the health system. That is why this issue is being addressed not just by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, but by the Secretary of State for Health. If we are going to give people the reassurance they need in the longer term that their social care needs will be met, we need to make it clear that this is not just about looking for a short-term solution. It is about finding a way forward that can give us a sustainable system of social care for the future.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware that £4.6 billion was cut from the social care budget in the last Parliament. Her talk about putting this on to local government ought to be taken for what it is—a con. Two per cent. of council tax is clearly a nonsense; 95% of councils used the social care precept, and it raised less than 3% of the money they planned to spend on adult social care. Billions seem to be available for tax give-aways to corporations—not mentioned in the autumn statement—and underfunding has left many elderly people isolated and in crisis because of the lack of Government funding for social care.
The Prime Minister
Many councils around the country have taken the benefit of the social care precept and as a result have actually seen more people being able to access social care and more needs being met. Sadly, there are some councils across the country—some Labour councils—that have not taken that opportunity and we see worse performance on social care. The right hon. Gentleman once again referred to money, so I remind him that the then shadow Chancellor said at the last election that if Labour was in government there would be “not a penny more” for local authorities. When recently asked about spending more money on social care and where the money would come from, Labour’s shadow Health Secretary said:
“Well, we’re going to have to come up with a plan for that”.
Jeremy Corbyn
This Government have cut social care and the Prime Minister well knows it, and she well knows the effects of that. She also well knows that raising council tax has different outcomes in different parts of the country. If you raise the council tax precept in Windsor and Maidenhead, you get quite a lot of money. If you raise the council tax precept in Liverpool or Newcastle, you get a lot less. Is the Prime Minister saying that frail, elderly, vulnerable people in our big cities are less valuable than those in wealthier parts of the country?
This is a crisis for many elderly people who are living in a difficult situation, but it is also a crisis for the national health service. People in hospital cannot be discharged because there is nowhere for them to go. I ask the Prime Minister again: the crisis affects individuals, families and the national health service, so why does she not do something really bold: cancel the corporation tax cut and put the money into social care instead?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman referred to Newcastle council in his list. I have to say that Newcastle City Council is one of the councils that saw virtually no delayed discharges in September, so elderly people were not being held up in hospital when they did not need or want to be. That shows that it is possible for councils to deliver on the ground. Councils such as Newcastle and Torbay are doing that, but councils such as Ealing are not using the social care precept and the result is different. The difference between the worst performing council in relation to delayed discharges and the best is twentyfold. That is not about the difference in funding; it is about the difference in delivery.
Jeremy Corbyn
Councils across the country work hard to try to cope with a 40% cut in their budgets, and the people paying the price are those who are stuck in hospital who should be allowed to go home and those who are not getting the care and support they need. The social care system is deep in crisis. The crisis was made in Downing Street by this Government. The former Chair of the Health Committee, Stephen Dorrell, says that the system is inadequately funded. The current Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), said that
“this issue can’t be ducked any longer because of the impact it is having not just on vulnerable people, but also on the NHS.”
Why does the Prime Minister not listen to local government, the King’s Fund, the NHS Confederation and her own council leaders and recognise that this social care crisis forces people to give up work to care for loved ones because there is no system to do that? It makes people stay in hospital longer than they should and leads people into a horrible, isolated life when they should be cared for by all of us through a properly funded social care system. Get a grip and fund it properly, please.
The Prime Minister
The issue of social care has been ducked by Governments for too long. That is why this Government will provide a long-term sustainable system for social care that gives people reassurance. The right hon. Gentleman talks about Governments ducking social care, so let us look at the 13 years of Labour government. In 1997, they said in their manifesto that they would sort it. They had a royal commission in 1999, a Green Paper in 2005 and the Wanless report in 2006. They said they would sort it in the 2007 comprehensive spending review. In 2009, they had another Green Paper: 13 years and no action whatsoever.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. This is an appalling strike and he is right to raise the discrepancy in the attitude of ASLEF; we have seen driver-only operated trains on rail networks in the UK for decades and they are on Thameslink. I hope that the talks at ACAS are going to lead to an end to this strike, but I have a suggestion for the Leader of the Opposition, as he could do something to help members of the public. The Labour party is funded by ASLEF. Why does he not get on the phone and tell it to call the strike off immediately?
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
We join the leader of the Labour party and the Prime Minister in wishing great success to the Jo Cox single, which is available for download on Friday—I am sure we are all going to download it.
Civilians have suffered grievously from the bombing of hospitals, schools and markets. The United Nations believes that 60% of civilian casualties are caused by airstrikes. In the past 24 hours, the United States has stopped the supply of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen. When will the UK follow suit?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a very strict regime of export licences in relation to weapons here in the United Kingdom. We exercise that very carefully, and in recent years we have indeed refused export licences in relation to arms, including to Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Angus Robertson
The US Government have just said that
“systematic, endemic problems in Saudi Arabia’s targeting drove the US decision to halt a future weapons sale involving precision-guided munitions”.
The Saudis have UK-supplied precision-guided Paveway IV missiles—they are made in Scotland. The UK has licensed £3.3 billion-worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since the beginning of the bombing campaign. What will it take for the UK to adopt an ethical foreign policy when it comes to Yemen?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the intervention in Yemen is a UN-backed intervention. As I have said previously, where there are allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law, we require those to be properly investigated. We do have a relationship with Saudi Arabia. The security of the Gulf is important to us, and I would simply also remind him that Saudi intelligence—the counter-terrorism links we have with Saudi Arabia and the intelligence we get from Saudi Arabia—has saved potentially hundreds of lives here in the UK.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of looking at a sustainable way in which we can support integrated health and social care, and a sustainable way for people to know that in the future they are going to be able to have the social care that they require. As I said earlier in response to the Leader of the Opposition, we recognise the short-term pressures that there are on the system, but it is important for us to look at those medium-term and longer-term solutions if we are going to be able to address this issue. I was very pleased to be able to have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss this last week, and I look forward to further such meetings.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister
We do raise the issue of human rights when we meet the Gulf states, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in relation to the role that Russia is playing in Syria. There is a very simple message for President Putin. He has it within his own hands to say to the Assad regime that enough is enough in Aleppo. We need to ensure that humanitarian aid is there for people and that there is security for the people who have, as the hon. Gentleman has said, been heroically saving the lives of others. I am sure that that is a message that he and others will be giving to the Russian ambassador. It is in President Putin’s hands; he can do it, why does he not?
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
First of all, I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone who took part in Singing for Syrians. I am sure the whole House welcomes the work that that group is doing and the money that it is raising and putting to extremely good use. The House was struck when she mentioned the number of people who are on the waiting list for prosthetic limbs. Our humanitarian aid support for Syria is the biggest such effort that the UK has made. Of course we are giving money to the refugees who have fled from Syria. We are also working diplomatically to try to reduce the suffering and to ensure that the sort of aid and medical support that she is talking about gets through to the citizens of Aleppo. We will continue to ensure that our humanitarian aid is being put to good use—helping those who are vulnerable and also helping those who need the education and support to be able, in due course, to rebuild Syria when it is stable and secure.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I recognise that there are many people who are just about managing and struggling to get by who find themselves having to revert to support from companies that do, sadly, charge the sort of interest rates that he is talking about. Action has been taken in relation to some of those activities in the past, but I will look at the issue that he raised.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has raised; it is one that is shared by many Kent MPs who see this problem only too closely in their own constituencies. May I assure her that the Government share the desire to ensure that we do not see this fly-parking of lorries across Kent and that we do provide suitable lorry parking facilities in Kent? I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), is looking at this issue very carefully. I recognise, from my time as Home Secretary, the pressure that can be put on the roads, villages and towns in Kent at particular times. The Government are working on it, and we will find a solution.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue of decent mobile coverage does not only affect the highlands. There are parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland that are also affected. The Government have very strong commitments in relation to this; we have very strong commitments in relation to broadband. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will deliver on those.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Money cannot compensate someone who has been accused of a very serious criminal offence and who then finds that the details are in the press along with their name. Nothing, in truth, can restore their reputation after it has been trashed in those circumstances. In 2011, I tried to change the law with a private Member’s Bill. Today, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that it was time to introduce new legislation. Will the Prime Minister agree at least to consider changing the law so that everyone, with a few exceptions, has the right to anonymity if they are a suspect in criminal proceedings until such time as they are charged?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the interest that my right hon. Friend takes in this issue. She will know that it has been debated on a number of occasions in the House. The general assumption is that someone should not be named before the point of charge, but there is an allowance for the police to be able to raise someone’s name if it is a case where they believe that doing so will perhaps help other victims to come forward. This is of particular concern in matters of sexual violence—rape, for example—or where the police believe that the naming of an individual will help in the detection of the crime. This is a delicate issue, and I recognise my right hon. Friend’s concern. The College of Policing is looking at it very carefully, and is due to provide new guidance to the police in the new year in relation to the media.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
We must all take responsibility for decisions that we have taken, whether we take them sitting around the National Security Council table or, indeed, whether we take them in the House, with the decision it took in 2013. The hon. Lady raised the question of UK-led action in relation to the protection of civilians. The UK has been pressing for action in the United Nations Security Council, working with the French. The two most recent emergency UN Security Council meetings were called for by us, and the most recent took place yesterday. As she will know, there have been six UN Security Council resolutions which have been vetoed by Russia. The most recent was also vetoed by China. We continue to work with the United Nations, but if we are to get a solution that works on the ground other countries have to buy into it, and it has to be a solution that Russia buys into, as well as the regime.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I have received a message from Nick from Grantham—actually, it was a text message from our hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). For the avoidance of doubt, this is one text message that he is willing to have read out in public. Other than getting rid of his tumour and making a swift return to this place, nothing matters more to him than ensuring that round-the-clock emergency services are restored to his local hospital in Grantham. Will my right hon. Friend receive the petition that he has organised, ensure that the passionate views of his constituents are heard, and above all reassure people in that rural area that they will always have access to safe emergency care for them and their families?
The Prime Minister
I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with our hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and I wish him the very best for his recovery as he goes through this illness. I recognise the strength of feeling he has about the emergency services in his local hospital. I believe that those concerns are shared by our new hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford that the process that is taking place, which is looking at the development of local services, is about listening to local people, hearing the local voice and, above all, ensuring that the services available to people in their local area are the right services for that area and that they can be delivered safely and securely for local people.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No. Obviously we have put the social care precept in place in recognition of the pressures on social care, but I am very pleased to say that we have seen many examples over the country of good local authorities ensuring that they are keeping council tax down, including the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which cut council tax for six years running.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
On 14 August my constituents George Low and Ben Barker were the victims of a vicious knife attack in Ayia Napa. George Low, sadly, died later that day from his injuries. The two culprits fled to northern Cyprus, where they were arrested on unrelated matters. Despite representations made by the Foreign Office, one of those men was recently able to walk free, and it is feared that the second man will follow shortly. Will the Prime Minister do all she can to help to bring justice for George Low and Ben Barker for what was an horrific, vicious attack that was completely without provocation and has been devastating for both their families?
The Prime Minister
I am sure all of us across the House send our deepest sympathies to the family of George Low, and our very best wishes to Ben Barker for a full recovery from the terrible injuries that he suffered as a result of what was, as my hon. Friend said, a violent and completely unprovoked attack. The case was raised most recently with the relevant Government by the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Cyprus on 30 November, and he set out clearly our desire to see those guilty of this attack brought to justice. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to offer help and support to both families. We will continue to raise this issue, and I am sure the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will keep my hon. Friend informed of any developments.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We will need to address such issues as we look at the arrangements that will be in place following our exit from the EU. I am sure everybody recognises the significance of the Arbroath smokie and other products from around the United Kingdom. At the end of his question the hon. Gentleman said “should we leave the EU”. I can tell him that we will be leaving the EU.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
On 19 December 35 years ago, 16 people lost their lives in ferocious storms off the coast of west Cornwall. Eight of them were men from Mousehole, who had launched the Penlee lifeboat, the Solomon Browne, to rescue the crew of the Union Star. Thirty-five years later, this tragedy still haunts the village of Mousehole and West Penwith, and many people mark the anniversary every year. Will the Prime Minister join me in remembering these brave men and the loved ones they left behind, and pay credit to all our lifeboat men and women, who are prepared to risk their lives for those in peril on the sea?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I absolutely join him in marking the 35th anniversary of the Penlee lifeboat tragedy and in sending our sympathies to all those families who were affected, but also to the local communities who were affected, as he has set out. I am sure everybody in this House would want to pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution as well and the tireless work it does. As an island, it is important that we have that security and safety around our shores. The RNLI works tirelessly to protect people who, as he said, are in peril on the sea, and we pay tribute to it.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Lady that I am keen to ensure that we can protect the rights of EU citizens living here, but I am also keen that the rights of UK citizens who are living in the EU are protected as well. The Home Secretary, I think, is aware of the proposals that have been put forward and is looking at them very carefully.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In October, hundreds of people from across Europe attended a neo-Nazi rally in Haddenham, a small village in my rural constituency. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to tackle racial hatred?
The Prime Minister
First of all, can we once again, from this House, send a very clear message that there is no place for racial hatred in our society? This is so important. The Home Office has done a lot of work on racial hatred and hate crime. It has published a hate crime action plan, which shows what we are going to be doing during the lifetime of this Government. Of course, earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proscribed the right-wing organisation National Action, which means that being a member of, or inviting support for, that organisation will be a criminal offence. It is important that we take every step we can to stop racial hatred in this country, and I was pleased to announce on Monday that Britain will be the first country in Europe to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to raise the role that education plays in ensuring the futures of young people in Bradford. That is why I am pleased to say that there has been an increase of nearly 16,000 children in Bradford who have been at good or outstanding schools since 2010. We are taking action to ensure the quality of education, but I want to make sure that there are enough good school places for children across the whole country, and that is what our education consultation is about.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I came to Prime Minister’s questions today from an incredibly moving and powerful private session with the Work and Pensions Committee, where we talked and listened to victims of modern slavery who are now living in safe houses—I do not think I will ever forget it in my life. Please will the Prime Minister take her enthusiasm and the passion with which she drove this issue as Home Secretary and work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? These people are vulnerable. When they come to the jobcentre, so often their background and their cases are not understood. As with survivors of domestic violence, they need to be fast-tracked through the system. If ever vulnerable people needed the state to step up and support them, it is these people. Please can we do more?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing brings home the absolutely horrific nature of the crime of modern slavery than actually sitting down and hearing the testimony of a victim. These people have, very often, gone through the most horrendous, dehumanising experiences. It is absolutely right that the Government brought forward the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is right that we have been looking at how victim support is provided and at the national referral mechanism—a whole number of steps—and of course we will work with the DWP in looking at the support that is given. She makes an important point in referring to jobcentres, but of course it is not just about jobcentres. One of the things we need to do is to ensure that those in authority who come into contact with people who have been the victims of modern slavery are able to recognise the signs, and able to treat it in the right way and deal with people sensitively and sympathetically in an appropriate way.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister
First of all, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has been taking steps in relation to the general performance of Southern railway. We have stepped in to invest £20 million specifically to tackle the issue and bring a rapid improvement in services. We announced Delay Repay 15 from 11 December for the whole of Southern railway, which will make it easier for passengers to claim compensation. We have announced that we will give passengers who are season ticket holders on Southern a refund for a month’s travel. We have been looking at the wider issue. The hon. Lady raises the question of the current strike. There is only one body responsible for the current strike, and that is ASLEF. This a strike by the trade unions, and she should be standing up and condemning that strike, because it is passengers who suffer.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The £1.5 billion of additional funding for the better care fund is both needed and welcome, but the problem is that this money is not available until 2019. Will my right hon. Friend therefore look at seeing whether some of this funding can be drawn down earlier than that in order to alleviate the pressure on social care in areas such as Devon, where there is a very high level of elderly people?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the short-term pressures on social care. That is why the Government have been looking at what measures can be taken to alleviate those short-term pressures. As I say, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will be making a statement on the local government finance settlement tomorrow, but we do need to look at the medium-term issues of delivery and the longer-term reassurance that we can provide to people in ensuring that we have a sustainable system of social care that gives people the comfort of knowing that they will be cared for in their old age.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
May I join colleagues who urged people in this House and beyond to go out and buy the Jo Cox Foundation single by the excellent MP4, which is not just available on download but in hard copy for those of us who prefer that kind of thing?
Every day since the Brexit result on 23 June seems to have been a good day to bury bad news, and the worst news is in our social care and health system: the daily wave of tragedies, indignities and near misses; the £2.5 billion shortfall in social care funding; and thousands of operations already cancelled. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Health said that the NHS and social care needed more money, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not offer a single extra penny for health or social care in the autumn statement. Which of the two does the Prime Minister agree with? Will she take this opportunity to provide health and social care with the money it needs this side of Christmas?
The Prime Minister
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be making a statement tomorrow on the local government finance settlement. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for that statement.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Back in 2010, the overseas aid budget was around £7 billion a year. By 2020, it will have more than doubled to over £15 billion a year. The shortfall in social care funding by 2020 is estimated at about £2.5 billion a year. Surely the Government priority should be to look after the elderly, vulnerable and disabled people in our own country before we hand money over to other countries. Will the Prime Minister take some of that money—a small amount of that increase—from the overseas aid budget and spend it on elderly, vulnerable and disabled people in our own country? Surely charity begins at home.
The Prime Minister
I think it is absolutely right that the Government are taking steps on the pressures on social care here in the United Kingdom, but it is also important for us that we take into consideration those who are in different circumstances across the world. This Government’s record of ensuring that 0.7% of our GDP is spent on overseas aid is a record second to none. We should all be proud of the help and support that we are giving to people around the world who, often, are living in incredibly difficult circumstances. We look after old people here in the UK; we also take seriously that moral responsibility for people around the world.
Petition
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 1,500 residents of my constituency of Selly Oak, including a great many parents who live in Druids Heath, protesting at the threat and closure of their only secondary school, Baverstock Academy. Whatever the problems at Baverstock, they are not the fault of the pupils or the parents, and they should not be punished for the failings of others by losing their only secondary school.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Birmingham Selly Oak constituency,
Declares that Baverstock Academy should not be closed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to save Baverstock Academy.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001999]
National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the second-stage consultation on the Government’s proposals to create a national funding formula for schools, copies of which can be found on the gov.uk website.
Since 2010, this Government have protected the core schools budget in real terms overall, but the system by which schools and high needs funding is distributed now needs to be reformed, to tackle the historical postcode lottery in school funding. These crucial reforms sit at the heart of delivering the Government’s pledge to build a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.
Our school funding system as it exists today is unfair, opaque and outdated. The reality is that patchy and inconsistent decisions on funding have built up over many years, based on data that are sometimes a decade or more out of date. What has been created over time is a funding system that allows similar schools with similar students to receive levels of funding so different that they put some young people at an educational disadvantage. For example, a school in Coventry can receive nearly £500 more per pupil than a school in Plymouth, despite having the same proportion of pupils eligible for the pupil premium. A Nottingham school can attract £460 more per pupil than one in Halton, despite having the same proportion of pupils eligible for the pupil premium. As those figures demonstrate, our funding system is broken and unfair, and we cannot allow that to continue.
Our overall proposals for the principles and broad design of the schools and high needs funding system—as set out in the first stage of the national funding formula consultation by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)—were widely welcomed. Today we set out our response to that, and the final stage of putting in place a national funding formula.
First, we are proposing a consistent base rate for every pupil at primary and at secondary level, which steadily increases in value as they progress through the system between primary and secondary. This is the largest factor in the formula, accounting for more than £23 billion of annual core schools funding and more than 70% of the funding total.
Secondly, we are proposing to protect resources for pupils who come from disadvantaged families, and we are taking a broad view to target £3 billion of funding annually for those who are most in need of support. Our formula will prioritise not only children in receipt of free school meals but those who live in areas of disadvantage. That will help to support many more families who are most likely to be just about managing to get by.
That is alongside our broader commitment to maintain pupil premium funding for deprived pupils in full. That will be protected at current rates throughout the remainder of this Parliament. We have listened to the responses received to the first stage of the consultation, so our funding formula will include a factor for mobility to reflect the number of children who join a school mid-year. That is in response to London, which called particularly strongly for that in reply to the consultation. We will also protect small, rural schools, which are so important for their local communities, through the inclusion of a sparsity factor.
Thirdly, alongside a basic amount and an uplift for disadvantage, we will direct £2.4 billion in funding towards pupils with low prior attainment at both primary and secondary school to ensure they get the vital support they need to catch up with their peers. Our proposed reforms will mean that schools and local authorities all across England that have been underfunded for years will see their funding increase. Our proposed formula will result in more than 10,000 schools gaining funding and more than 3,000 receiving an increase of more than 5%. Those that are due to see gains will see them quickly, with increases of up to 3% in per pupil funding in 2018-19 and up to a further 2.5% in 2019-20.
At the same time as restoring fairness to the funding system, we are also building significant protections into our formula. No school will face a reduction of more than 3% per pupil overall as a result of the new formula, and none will lose more than 1.5% per pupil per year. For high needs funding, which provides local authorities with the money they need to deliver the extra support required by our most vulnerable children and young people—those with the most extreme special needs, whether they are in special schools or mainstream schools—we propose to allocate more than £5 billion a year in funding. That will mean that no local authority will see its funding reduce as a result of the introduction of the formula.
We also propose to give local areas a limited flexibility to redirect funding between their schools and high needs budgets, through agreement between the local authority and local schools, to support collaborative approaches to provision for special needs pupils. Those protections will allow all schools and local authorities to manage the transition to fairer funding while making the best use of their resources and managing cost pressures, ensuring that every pound is used effectively to drive up standards and has the maximum impact for the young people we are investing in. In addition, to support schools in using their funding to the greatest effect, we have put in place and continue to develop a comprehensive efficiency package.
As I said in my statement to the House on 21 July, I recognise the importance of this reform, which is long overdue. I am keen to allow the proper amount of time for all schools and stakeholders to have a chance to reflect on this detailed formula. The consultation will therefore be open for 14 weeks until 22 March, with final decisions to be made before summer next year. It is our intention that once we reach a final design, the national funding formula will properly be introduced in 2018-19. That will be a transitional year, during which local authorities will continue to set local schools’ funding formulae. In 2019-20 we will move to having our schools funding go directly to schools, so that the great majority of each school’s individual budget is determined on the basis of a single, national formula.
It is now time for us to consult on the more detailed design of the formula, so that with the help of the sector we can really get the national funding formula right. We are keen to hear as many views as possible, and I encourage Members and their constituents to scrutinise and respond to the detailed consultation documents that we are issuing. The proposals for funding reform will mean that all schools and local areas receive a consistent and fair share of the schools budget, so that they can have the best possible chance to give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential. Once it is implemented, the formula will mean that wherever a family lives in England, their children will attract a similar level of funding—one that properly reflects their needs.
The Government believe that the funding system that we propose will ensure our schools system works fairly, and I commend this statement to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
After many delays, the Secretary of State has finally come forward with the Government’s so-called fair funding formula. I thank her for advance sight of her statement and the raft of documents she sent me just half an hour ago.
If only the fair funding formula lived up to its name. Does the Secretary of State recall the commitment in her party’s manifesto to
“continue to protect school funding”?
Does she accept that the National Audit Office has confirmed something that the Institute for Fiscal Studies had already told us, which she tried to ignore—that the Government will be cutting the schools budget by at least 8%, and that is not changed at all by today’s announcement? Does she remember that that same manifesto promised:
“Under a future Conservative Government, the amount of money following your child into school will be protected”?
The National Audit Office has made it clear that funding per pupil will also fall by 8%. Is the National Audit Office wrong, or is the new, unelected Prime Minister ripping up the manifesto that her predecessor put to the country?
The Secretary of State said that the so-called fair funding formula would mean that no school would lose more than 1.5% of its funding per year. How can she possibly reconcile that with the projections of schools facing actual cuts of up to double that and real-terms cuts of up to 10%? Can she tell the House how exactly a funding formula can be fair when it will mean that a third of local authorities and around 10,000 schools, serving more than 2 million children, lose money? In a period when pupil numbers and inflation are rising in tandem, the pressure on school budgets will continue to increase. The National Audit Office has told us today that school budgets are facing a “real-terms reduction”. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what percentage of the schools budget will be cut over this Parliament, and how much that cut will be for the average secondary school? Will she tell us how, at a time when pressure on schools is increasing, she can possibly justify that position?
The Department has said that schools will need to make £3 billion in efficiency savings over this Parliament, but the National Audit Office has said that schools are not prepared for the “scale and pace” of the changes, and that the Department has failed to make that clear to them. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how exactly the Department will ensure that schools are able to meet her demands? Is the suggestion that schools make £1.7 billion in savings by “using staff more efficiently” just a crude euphemism for cutting the jobs of teachers, teaching assistants and vital support staff, at a point when the workforce is already facing a crisis? The Department has said that the funding formula will be about targeting on the basis of pupils’ need rather than their postcode. Can she explain why schools up and down the country will be losing out, and why many in the most disadvantaged areas will lose the most?
The only new money being offered to English schools is to expand the few remaining grammar schools, 80% of which are in Tory-held seats, regardless of where the need for places is. Does the Secretary of State accept that that means that the only parts of Britain denied new funding are the comprehensive areas of England? Does she acknowledge that nearly 60% of secondary schools across the country already receive less in funding than they spend on teaching, and that they are already running at a deficit? Will she tell us her projections of the increase in pupil numbers over the spending review period, her forecast for the rate of inflation facing schools, and therefore the rise in costs facing schools? The Secretary of State seems to believe that all these savings and all these cuts can be managed without any impact on the education of our children. Will she tell the House how exactly she will ensure that that happens in practice?
You know, Mr Speaker, they used to say the Tories knew the value of nothing but the price of everything, but now they do not even know that. They have failed on the economy, failed on protecting our NHS and now failed on our children.
Justine Greening
I have to say that I am absolutely staggered at that response from the shadow Secretary of State for Education. There is cross-party support for reforming the national funding formula and, from representing our constituencies, we all know that it is impossible to justify the current approach. It would have been better if we had had a more thoughtful response, rather than just a diatribe of political rhetoric, from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
On some of the points the hon. Lady tried to make, the reality is that we have been able to protect the schools budget—the core schools budget—in real terms. That is because we have a thriving economy, which is generating the taxes that mean we can continue to invest in our public services. She talked about fair funding, but did not seem to understand or to have listened to my statement. Perhaps she had already written what she wanted to say, and was not actually interested in the reality. The funding formula absolutely bakes in making sure that we have the right amount of funding for children from more disadvantaged areas. In fact, we have taken a broader definition of disadvantage to make sure that it is not only the children eligible for free school meals who will get additional support. We have also made sure that the formula builds in a strong focus on low prior attainment, so that the children who have fallen behind—we need to invest in and support them to catch up—get additional resourcing. Schools with more of them will get more.
The hon. Lady seemed to fail even to hear the statement I made. I have to say that, based on the lack of engagement from the Labour Front Bench, I will sit down and give colleagues with more thoughtful questions a chance to ask them.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I certainly welcome this statement, as will many parents across the country. It has been long awaited, as the Secretary of State conceded, but it has the right tone, the right context and, essentially, the right capacity to make the changes. It will also enable schools to plan ahead, which will be very good for all schools in terms of teacher recruitment and teacher retention, which we also need to address. Will she be sure to accommodate issues about the future of local government, because there will be some changes? This is a national formula, so the future of local government must be considered in that context.
Justine Greening
We are busy doing that already. I felt it was quite important, in the second-stage consultation, to recognise the need to understand how a little bit of local flexibility could help us to make sure that the formula works right on the ground. That is therefore part of the consultation I have set out. We have set out our plans for the 2018-19 transition year, and we are asking how we can look at this more carefully for future years. That is precisely why it is important for colleagues from both sides of the House to take the time to engage with the documents—there is a lot of data—we are publishing today.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We would all agree with the aims of a fairer funding formula, but does the Secretary of State not recognise that she is delivering this in the context of dramatic and significant overall cuts to schools budgets? Even the so-called winners under her formula will also face school budget cuts. In a constituency such as mine, which is a loser under this formula—over 50% of children are living in poverty, which makes it the constituency with the second highest level of child poverty in the entire country—school budgets losing money will mean that one-to-one tuition will be going and catch-up classes will be going. Extra-curricular activities—the drama, the Shakespeare—and all the vital things I want kids in Moss Side and Moston to do will be going as a result of her funding crisis, aside from the announcement today.
Justine Greening
I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the detail in relation to her constituency. The documents will be published following the statement, as is the normal practice of the House, and I encourage her to look at them. Yes, we need to work with schools to help them to deliver efficiencies, but one thing we have learned over the years from such a divergent funding formula across schools is that many schools are able to deliver excellent and outstanding results on very different cost bases. That shows we need to be able to work with them to get more value out of the system and to make the investment we are putting into schools—core school funding is being protected in real terms over this Parliament—go as far as possible.
I would also say to the hon. Lady that, yes, the National Audit Office report flags up the cost pressures on schools, but there are of course cost pressures on introducing the living wage for the lowest-paid workers in our country. Some of them work in schools, and they should benefit from the introduction of the living wage. There are additional employer contributions to teacher pension schemes, which will make sure we have sustainable pensions for teachers in the long run. I would have hoped that Labour Members welcomed such steps, but we will also work with schools to help them to achieve efficiencies.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement. May I urge my right hon. Friend not to move from the very clear timetable she has set out for the formula’s implementation? It is very keenly anticipated and looked forward to by underfunded local authorities, such as mine in Trafford.
Justine Greening
I have set out a very clear timetable today. In spite of the fact that the Labour party clearly has no interest in having fair funding or funding that goes to the most disadvantaged children—the children who need to catch up—we will press on with this process.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on grappling with this issue, but, as she has indicated, the devil is in the detail, and I look forward to looking at it. The education of 16 to 19-year-olds, who are in schools as well as in colleges, had a cut of 14% during the coalition Government. There is a big difference between what they get and what four to 16-year-olds and those at university get. What will she do about that funding crisis?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman and I share a deep interest in technical education and a passion for improving it. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills is looking at how to implement a skills strategy that will make sure that our technical education system is at the same gold standard level that we are steadily ensuring our education system is reaching. We have protected per pupil core funding post-16, but we want to look at how to make sure that further education improves its attainment levels in the way that has happened across the broader schools system.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
West Berkshire and Wokingham education authorities, which serve my constituency, are among those worst funded. They are finding it very difficult to keep their excellent education and their current teacher workforces going. We therefore welcome the statement. Will there be any transitional relief for 2017-18, because our financial need exists now?
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend will know that the previous year’s transitional relief has been carried over to the forthcoming year. Beyond that, I am now setting out the steps we will take to make funding fairer. This is important, and despite the debate that will no doubt be kicked off on the back of this consultation, we just cannot accept a situation in which a similar child with similar needs has such a difference in funding put into their education and their school for no other reason than that they are in different places. This simply cannot and should not be accepted, which is why we are setting out our solution today.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the transformation of London’s schools. In 1997 when Labour took power, schools in my constituency were among the worst. By the time we left office, they were among the best, and that continued under the last Government. That transformation happened thanks to the London challenge and continued investment. Will the Secretary of State confirm that London’s achievement will not be damaged by this formula and that London’s schools will not lose the £260 million we have heard about? We need to learn from London’s success and replicate it in other parts of the country.
Justine Greening
I can reassure the hon. Lady that under the formula, London will continue to be well funded. Despite the percentage of children eligible for free school meals in London having fallen from 28% to 17% over the last 10 years, London still has some of the most deprived parts of our country. The funding formula will ensure that London still receives some of the best funding of any region for its schools. That is happening because it is appropriate, but what we cannot accept is areas in other parts of the country that have similar challenges of deprivation and, additionally, low prior attainment not being funded for no other reason than that they are not London. It is time to ensure that we have a fair approach, but it is a fair approach for London too.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support this announcement. For too long, Swindon’s children have been short-changed by Labour’s hopeless funding formula. Change cannot come soon enough. I urge the Secretary of State to explore options on private finance initiative schemes, which are frustrating improvement plans in many of my local schools.
Justine Greening
That issue was raised in response to the phase 1 consultation, so we will ensure that the formula reflects the fact that there are PFI commitments that will continue in real terms. I have no doubt that that will be good news for my hon. Friend’s local area. Obviously, we do not want to perpetuate those schemes when they have steadily run down, but it is important to reflect the reality of those cost pressures on schools that are in that position.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State listed a number of factors—mobility, disadvantage and prior attainment—that are crucial in many constituencies, particularly those in urban areas like the one that I represent. Will she give us more detail on how big a factor they will be, because that will determine how much constituencies like mine lose out? The concern in Liverpool is that, on top of the substantial cuts to local government funding, our schools will lose out at a time when they are finding it challenging to recruit teachers and headteachers.
Justine Greening
As the hon. Gentleman points out, in addition to the core base amount of funding, there is roughly a further 25% that is uplifted in relation to deprivation, additional needs and locational needs. Although mobility was not one of the original factors in the phase 1 consultation—in other words, this is the challenge that some schools and local areas face when children arrive during the year, as opposed to growth, which relates to steady demographic change and sometimes an influx between years—we recognised that it was important to reflect it in the formula. We have looked at the cost pressures that we think relate to mobility. We will initially base the 2018-19 formula on historical levels, because that is the one evidence base we have, but we will consider what is a sensible way to look at mobility going forward.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome the statement. Gloucestershire County Council has been a poorly funded local authority, so this will be welcomed in my county. I welcome the fact that sparsity will be taken into account, which is important in rural constituencies like mine. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, based on the timetable she has set out, with the final position being reached in 2019-20, we will have delivered on our manifesto commitment to deliver fair funding in this Parliament?
Justine Greening
I believe we will have done so. We will have brought in a formula that works more effectively and we will have transitioned it in appropriately. I believe that it will be a big step forward, particularly for schools that have been so underfunded for so long.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is right that this kind of funding has to be upgraded and uprated over time. I certainly welcome that. However, is she also aware that it is the responsibility of this House to check the fairness of that over time through the Select Committee system and in this Chamber? Does she accept the implication that, overall, the challenges in our education system are grave when the chief inspector, who is about to retire, points out that so many bright children in our country, who grew bright through good primary schools up to the age of 11, are lost to education post-11? Will she do something about that? Will she also do something about the chief inspector’s deep worry that pupils in many of the big towns and cities in the midlands and the north are severely underperforming?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman sets out some of the challenges that we continue to face in our education system. That is precisely why the national funding formula makes sure that resources go to schools that are in more disadvantaged areas and those that have cohorts of young people and children who are starting from furthest behind. That is not only the sensible approach; it is the right thing to do for those children and schools. For too long, that has not been built into the school funding formula. That is what we are trying to resolve today. This is the second stage of the consultation. There are 14 weeks for everyone to look at whether the way in which we have blended the different criteria is right. I think that it is.
In addition to what we are announcing today, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have launched six opportunity areas to look at how we can ensure that we have excellent education in those parts of the country where we still have not seen enough improvement.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Both Plymouth and Coventry were bombed heavily during world war two, have areas of deprivation and have similar demographics. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the discrepancy of £500 per pupil per year simply cannot be justified? Her statement will be warmly welcomed. May I ask for maximum clarity at the earliest opportunity on what schools in my constituency will get in 2018 to help them prepare for the September 2017 budget, which is likely to be challenging?
Justine Greening
After the statement, we will publish a lot of detail in relation to individual schools. We will take the draft final formula and apply it to individual schools’ budgets, so all Members will be able to look at all the schools in their constituency and see, notionally and illustratively, how the formula will operate. Of course, when the funding formula comes in, it will apply against the up-to-date pupil numbers and pupil data, but we want to be very clear with the House about how it will work on the ground. I encourage all Members to look at the data for their own communities. They show that although no school will get exactly the same under the new formula as it has had in the past, it will be much fairer.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Regardless of this statement, which is by no means all bad, it is indisputable that school overheads are going up and that more and more secondary schools will go into debt. Why are we continuing to squander money on pointless pet projects and restructuring? Surely that is a huge diversion now.
Justine Greening
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have seen year-on-year improvements in our education system. As one of my predecessors said on the “Today” programme earlier this week, it is important that we continue the reforms we have already got under way. That is precisely what we will be doing.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I very much welcome today’s statement on behalf of schools in my Kent constituency, which are significantly underfunded and disadvantaged by the current formula. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to a rapid introduction of the new formula. In the meantime, will she consider seriously whether there is any possibility of interim funding for schools until the new formula is introduced?
Justine Greening
As I said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), the additional uplift that was provided last year will continue into the forthcoming year, after which we will introduce the national funding formula in 2018-19. Today, we are coming forward with a fundamental solution to a long-term problem that has been building up not just over the last decade, but for 20 years—some people would argue it has been 30 years in the making. Now is the time, finally, that we sort this out.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether an area cost adjustment multiplier will be applied as a result of the new formula? The funding gap between the national average and what is received by schools in the north-east stands at £45 million a year. Will that gap increase or decrease as a result of the formula?
Justine Greening
The formula includes an area cost adjustment. It will be based on a hybrid measure that will look at not only general labour market costs but those relating to teachers, reflecting consultation feedback. It is also one reason why expensive parts of the country such as London will continue to be well funded, even under this formula.
Several hon. Members rose—
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome both the substance and the tone of the statement. Schools in Solihull receive £1,300 a year less per pupil than those in nearby Birmingham. As a result, we lose teachers to Birmingham. Will the Secretary of State assure me that at least some of that unfairness will be addressed during this Parliament?
Justine Greening
I have set out the timelines for the roll-out of this national funding formula. My hon. Friend sets out some of the by-products of the current unfair situation. That is another reason why it is important that we address that situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
It slightly pains me to call an Everton supporter today, but I do so nevertheless.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I will keep the gloating to a minimum, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State is dressing it up very well, but the reality of what she has announced is that some schools in the most deprived parts of the country, which face the biggest challenges, will have money taken away from them and given to schools elsewhere. Would it not have been much fairer for her to have asked the Chancellor for more money to bring the gap up that way? Instead, she is making schools in the toughest areas make teachers redundant to pay for this change.
Justine Greening
Again, there is a lot of rhetoric, but in the end the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have listened to my statement, which was very clear that this funding formula absolutely reflects issues of deprivation and lower prior attainment, as well as local cost issues. It is a step forward in making sure that we have a much fairer approach than in the past. I do not think he would be able to justify the current situation to many parents who simply cannot understand why their children get less funding than other children purely because of where they grow up.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Earlier this year, I held a roundtable for all the headteachers of primary and secondary schools across North Dorset. One big issue they raised was the recruitment and retention of staff in a rural area where living and other costs are higher, and all the rest of it. This announcement is very welcome. The sparsity quota that my right hon. Friend has referred to will be warmly welcomed by those headteachers. On their behalf, may I simply say, “Thank you”?
Justine Greening
I am grateful for that. As my hon. Friend points out, it is important that the formula reflects the very different challenges that schools face in very different situations and parts of our country. That is why the sparsity factor matters.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that schools all over the country are finding it difficult to recruit teachers because we are not training enough of them. For example, in Slough, where we do not get as much resource although we have exactly the same kind of challenges as inner London, headteachers are desperate. House prices in Slough went up faster than anywhere else in the country in the past year. Will she assure me that schools in my constituency will not face a cut as a result of this formula but will be rewarded for their brilliant work?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Lady should welcome the formula, because at the moment the flow of money into our schools is unfair. For a community such as hers, our proposed architecture for the national funding formula will make sure principally that funding is fair and there is an equal amount for children in primary and in secondary; then our main drivers of additional funding will be deprivation—as I said, £5 billion a year for that—and low prior attainment. That is the right way to structure the formula. Although we have seen progress in many schools in many parts of our country, we now need to make absolutely sure that resources flow towards those areas that need to lift.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Minister for schools was kind enough to meet me recently to discuss funding for schools in Wealden and East Sussex, and I am very grateful for that. My pupil funding is just £4,433.58. My small rural schools face severe challenges because of their small size and location, and a heavy weighting for sparsity in the formula is therefore vital if we are to ensure that Wealden’s superb schools can carry on providing a brilliant education.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we looked at the national funding formula mechanism, we saw that some local authorities do not use the sparsity factor. Our sparsity factor will go to all schools that should get additional support. That is why the formula should be welcomed.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Children in my constituency start school up to 19 months behind where they should be in terms of development. Without fantastic teachers and extra resources, they struggle to fulfil their potential and play catch-up for the rest of their lives. Will the Secretary of State tell me and schools in my constituency whether they will see their funding increase—yes or no?
Justine Greening
There is a greater focus in this formula on low prior attainment, which should address the hon. Lady’s question.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Under the current funding formula, Kingston schools are the third worst funded in London, receiving £2,400 per pupil per year less than Tower Hamlets, which is just 14 miles away. Having campaigned for changes and for fairer funding with teachers, parents and councillors, I look forward to responding to the phase 2 consultation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the mobility factor that I and other London MPs called for recognises the very real pressure that London and other urban and suburban schools face from children joining mid-term in large numbers?
Justine Greening
I think it can. Obviously, my hon. Friend will want to look at the detail in the consultation, but under this formula we will put £23 million into supporting children who move in-year and their schools. As a London MP, I know that has been an issue for some London schools. But it is not just an issue for London; there was a general response to the phase 1 consultation document saying that we needed to put the issue into the phase 2 consultation and that it should be made part of the formula. That is why we have done so.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for schools for listening to the case for adding mobility to the school funding formula and to the Secretary of State for her announcement; I will look carefully at the details. Should she not have secured the Chancellor’s support to make sure that no school sees a cut in its funding per pupil, given the cost pressures that she has referred to?
Justine Greening
I make two points. In spite of the need to reduce the deficit over time, which the Government have set about doing, we have protected the core schools budget in real terms. In addition, I recognise that there is a need to reduce the year-on-year reductions schools faced, so those will be no more than 1.5%. Indeed, the overall reduction for any per-pupil amount will be no more than 3%. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Following on from that point, there is a similar fair funding formula in the health service, but Wellingborough is always at the bottom. It never catches up because we are not prepared to reduce the money that the best funded get. I am slightly worried that my right hon. Friend’s answer suggests that that sort of thing will creep into the school system. Are we actually ever going to move to the formula—are schools actually going to get the cash that the formula says they will?
Justine Greening
In the transition year, some schools that are so far behind as to be eligible will get 3%; those schools that are even further behind under the fair formula will get a further 2.5% the following year, when the formula operates in full and properly. My hon. Friend is right to flag up the issue. It is important that the schools that have been underfunded see those gains coming through. That is what we are proposing.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Schools in areas such as Westminster have a combination of exceptionally high costs—not least recruitment and retention—and very high deprivation, and they are already making staff redundant. The Secretary of State partially blamed policies such as the introduction of the national living wage. Why are the Government introducing policies impacting on schools that they are not prepared to fund?
Justine Greening
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady supports the living wage, but the Government think that it is important. We also think a further two things, however: first, it is important to introduce this national funding formula—I hope that MPs can support it as a mechanism to make sure that the funding flowing into schools is delivered fairly—and secondly, it will ensure that children growing up in deprived areas see additional funding. I hope that she will reflect on that. In addition, wherever they grow up—whether or not in a deprived community—children who need to catch up will receive additional funding through this formula.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. One group we must not overlook is parents. In my constituency, parents work hard and often tell me, “I’m paying the same rate of tax as people in other areas. Why am I getting so much less money for my children in the state school system?” I urge her, when she gets the backlash from the more generously funded areas, to stand fast, particularly on support for rural schools, and to deliver this in full and in practice.
Justine Greening
We are at the beginning of a 14-week consultation, and it is important that everybody looks at the formula we are proposing. I think that it strikes the right balance, and I hope that it can command the broad support of the House.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I represent the 19th most disadvantaged constituency in the country—the Secretary of State spoke about disadvantage and deprivation—but can she tell parents and schools in my constituency whether they will receive more funding under this proposed formula or less?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady can look at the details for her own constituency once all the data are published, but I hope she will reflect on what I said earlier: we have designed the formula to ensure that the funding follows children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Indeed, we did not just consider the formal deprivation factors that many local authorities have; some local authorities, where virtually all the children are from deprived backgrounds, do not necessarily have a formal factor that reflects that, but nevertheless we tried to capture the hidden funding flowing through to help deprived children as part of the deprived factor.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
For decades, Staffordshire has languished 15 places from the bottom on funding. I have heard this all before, from Tony Blair and the unelected Prime Minister—as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) so charmingly put it—Gordon Brown, so I thank my right hon. Friend for coming up with a firm date for these reforms. Will she assure me that the children of Staffordshire will no longer be disadvantaged?
Justine Greening
I believe that this will be a fair funding formula that will be in everyone’s interests, including those of my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I have a letter from the National Union of Teachers, which is extremely alarmed that pupils in Bishop Auckland will lose £452 over the Parliament. Will the Secretary of State tell me what will happen in my constituency? She has reassured London MPs and the home counties. In the interests of intellectual honesty, will she say who are the losers out of her funding formula?
Justine Greening
We heard terrible scaremongering and numbers from the NUT that proved to be incorrect. It said that some schools would lose 10% under this funding formula, but, as I have set out, that is absolutely not the case. I would encourage the hon. Lady, like all Members, to look at the data for her own constituency. We will be publishing a lot of data once this statement is done, as is customary, because we want to be clear. This is a big step forward for schools funding and it is important that we are clear with people about the implications for their schools. That is what we have done.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s reference in her statement to sparsity and mobility. It is great news for constituencies such as mine. Does she agree that one of the most mobile pupil populations are the children of our armed forces families? How will she promote the pupil premium that we introduced in 2011 in the funding formula?
Justine Greening
The pupil premium is largely unaffected, but as my hon. Friend points out, there is now an element to ensure that the children of forces families are not disadvantaged when, as often happens, people get posted to different places and their children have to switch schools. That was one reason we were keen to handle the mobility issue carefully within the funding formula.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Schools in my constituency are among the lowest funded in the country, so we will look with interest at what the Secretary of State is proposing, but those schools are struggling now because of the Government’s actions: cuts to the education services grant have taken money out of the dedicated schools grant; schools are being inadequately funded under legislation on additional need; and our high-needs block is very underfunded. What will she do to assist these schools now, before the new funding formula comes in and before even more damage is done to the education of children at school now?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady raises a number of issues. On local authorities and school improvement, we have launched a strategic school improvement fund to ensure school improvement, particularly in those parts of the country where schools have made less progress than we would have wanted. In relation to high needs, as I set out, no local areas will see a reduction in their funding, but areas that have been most underfunded will see 3% gains over 2018-19 and 2019-20, which I hope she will welcome.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement. Hampshire is the third lowest funded local authority in the country and faces significant pressures—it needs 9,000 extra secondary school places by 2025 and 40% of its school estate is largely un-upgraded since the 1960s. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s proposal will address the single biggest factor causing the disparities around the country—the historical nature of the funding formula—and will restore equality and fairness to the system?
Justine Greening
Yes, I do. The old formula was arbitrary at both central Government and local authority level, which, as the formulae were set, baked in a second set of imbalances. It is now time to tidy that up and—critically—to make it fair and equal wherever children are.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that Nottingham schools face enormous challenges in raising education standards in a city with high deprivation. School leaders are already telling me they are struggling to cope and having huge difficulties recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. We know that all schools are facing a real-terms cut in funding, but how does she think headteachers, staff, parents and pupils in Nottingham will feel when she says it is fair that their schools are being cut even deeper to fund increases in other places?
Justine Greening
I do not think that anybody can argue in favour of a system that is simply a postcode lottery and in which there is very little, if any, relationship between, on the one hand, the needs of a school and the underlying cost base of where it is operating and, on the other hand, how much the school and the child get in funding. We are today setting out a formula that genuinely addresses that. It is a 14-week consultation, so there is plenty of time for Members to look at the impact on their local area and then take part in that consultation. I hope that MPs will do that.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
May I warmly welcome today’s statement on behalf of schools in Nottinghamshire, which have been poorly funded for a long time? In particular, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is part of addressing the lazy assumption that there is no deprivation in rural areas and counties? Counties such as Nottinghamshire and towns such as Newark have pockets of extreme deprivation—in former coalfield communities such as Ollerton and in Ashfield and Mansfield—and it surprises me that Opposition colleagues do not recognise that.
Justine Greening
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. The funding formula now enables us to take a proper, validated, evidence-based approach, including to deprivation, which was often driven by data that were 10-plus years out of date. It is time to fix that, and that is what we are launching today.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State recognise and understand the grave concerns of schools in my constituency and across Cumbria with above-average numbers of children with high needs that the change to the funding formula for teaching assistants, which will require schools to fund the first 10 hours rather than the first eight, will significantly impact existing budgets and mean cuts in those schools? Is it not the case that the proposed floor for maintaining the existing budget will be of little help if the current numbers of high-needs pupils continue to rise?
Justine Greening
I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the consultation. Alongside having an element of funding for local areas based on historic spend levels, which vary, we will look at population and needs within that as strong proxies for understanding how much funding we think should flow to different places. That will put us in a much fairer position, but as I have set out clearly, as part of that we will also ensure that no area will lose any funding as part of the transition.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Having wrestled with the education funding formula in local government for 20 years before I was elected to this place, I welcome the principle of fair funding, and in particular sparsity and the other elements contained within it. However, as a fellow London MP, my right hon. Friend will know that the cost of living in London is much higher than in the rest of the country. With 85% of a school’s budget typically spent on staffing, the need to pay staff extra salaries for recruitment and retention is paramount, so will she outline what extra money will be given to cover the cost of living and to protect schools from losing money?
Justine Greening
The area cost adjustment should enable us to do that effectively. As I have said, it is not based just on overall labour cost assumptions; it is based on cost assumptions in relation to teachers more specifically, so it should enable us to reflect that in the funding formula that we have now put in place. My hon. Friend will of course have a chance to respond to the consultation, but that is what we have tried to do.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement. Will she explain the flexibility between local authorities? For example, in 2010 the funding for children’s services in Haringey, one of London’s poorest boroughs, was £102 million and in 2017-18 it will be £46 million, although the population has grown and the children are no less needy. How does she see that interplaying, and will she explain how it will be addressed in the consultation?
Justine Greening
I was talking about two flexibilities in the consultation. They include, in relation to the high-needs fund that we are now consulting on, the ability for local authorities that will still receive high-needs funding to share some of that with mainstream schools, if they feel that is a better way of operating to provide for special needs locally. Of course, some special needs children are in mainstream schools and some are in special schools. We wanted to include an additional flexibility for 2018-19, so that where there is agreement locally that the funding should flow the opposite way—from the schools budget into high needs, perhaps because of the way that special needs are delivered locally—that should be possible if there is overall agreement from the majority of schools. That is what we are consulting on. We want to look at whether there is a longer-term approach, but the whole point of the second-stage consultation is to get feedback on those proposals.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement on fairer funding for schools. It is not right that constituencies such as mine have a £2,000 difference per pupil compared with other constituencies. I noted with interest that the Secretary of State identified as one of the reasons the fact that the data are a decade out of date, so going forward it is fundamental that we have the correct data, particularly in areas of high growth. Will she assure me that the data will be collected sufficiently late in the year, so that we know the accurate figures per pupil for the following school year?
Justine Greening
As part of the figures for deprivation we will be using IDACI—the income deprivation affecting children index—which essentially looks at how deprivation affects children in particular. It was last updated very recently, so it gives us a fresh database to use. In relation to broader pupil cohort characteristics, the census is updated in October every year and that feeds into the following academic year’s funding formula details. Those two things should mean that we have up-to-date data to feed in.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Is it not the case that this reform of the funding formula, which many of us agree needs to happen, would have been much easier had the Chancellor given some additional money to fund some of the changes? Also, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said, will not every single school in the country face real-terms cuts in their budget, including even those that gain, or think they gain, from the change to the funding formula? One way of tackling disadvantage is the pupil premium, so it would be interesting to hear what discussions took place about the pupil premium in making these changes. The Secretary of State said that the pupil premium “will be protected at current rates throughout the remainder of this Parliament”. Can she confirm whether that means rates as they are now or real-terms increases through the Parliament?
Justine Greening
We said that we will continue to put around £2.5 billion into the pupil premium, which is separate from the additional funding that will be uplifted on top of core basic funding rates, as part of the consultation that we are setting out today. Both those things underline the fact that this Government are determined to ensure that our schools funding really supports children in some of the toughest parts of the country who are most likely not to come out of the schools system with the outcomes that we want for them to be able to fulfil their potential.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The people of Worcestershire will welcome this statement because funding per pupil is £1,000 lower there than in neighbouring areas. Does the Secretary of State recognise that not everybody who lives in the countryside lives in some kind of rural idyll and that there are pockets of poverty and deprivation right across our countryside, including in my constituency, so investing in our children’s futures based on need and fairness is absolutely the right move?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why it is so important that we move to a sensible approach to how deprivation should be captured. It is also why we wanted to take a broader approach than using just those children eligible for free school meals. We did not want that cliff edge, so we will be looking at three components: existing eligibility for free school meals, children who have been eligible for free school meals over the past six years, which gives us a sense of the underlying need, and IDACI, an index that captures a broader definition of deprivation.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Teachers in my constituency are increasingly telling me about the funding pressures they are under. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State admit that young people in my constituency were at a disadvantage—she specifically cited the case of Halton, so I assume she knows it. What will the real-terms increase be for Halton pupils? She must know that, because she has cited Halton.
Justine Greening
I quoted what the current position was. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be interested to look at the details for his local community, once we release them, when this statement to the House is finally finished.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Schools in York have some of the lowest, if not the lowest, per pupil funding in the country, with some schools in London receiving more than £3,000 per pupil more, leaving schools in York on the brink of making some very difficult decisions, despite delivering excellent education. What message can the Secretary of State send to schools in York that have been waiting for this announcement for far too long and want to see it implemented as soon as possible?
Justine Greening
I think this will be a much fairer approach for all schools, including those in York, and we are taking steps to introduce it rapidly over the remainder of this Parliament, which is good news.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that everyone who wishes to ask a question of the Secretary of State will have an opportunity, but now that she has been answering questions for over an hour, it would be appropriate if questions were short and sharp, or we will be here all day.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Funding should be related to need, and this is a long-standing problem. In Liverpool, which is one of the most deprived areas, over 58% of the budget has already gone, and the NUT says that over £602 per pupil will be lost under the Government’s programme. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the students of Liverpool will not lose out in this redistribution of funds?
Justine Greening
I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the details that will be released by area and by school. To give her some reassurance, this is a formula that absolutely wants to ensure that we direct funding fairly, but also in relation to need, whether it be disadvantage or indeed low prior attainment. We think that the formula should be driven by data that, as I have said in my answers to other hon. Members, are more up to date. I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the consultation and at the details that will be released as part of it.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement, and schools in Cornwall will be very grateful that, at long last, the historical underfunding of its schools is being addressed. I am pleased to be part of the party of government who are at last dealing with it. I would like to raise the particular issue of the pupil premium and eligibility to it being based on free school meals. It is often difficult to get parents to register for free school meals, because of personal choice or the stigma they believe is attached to it, yet these data are already held by other Departments. Can we not get cross-Government co-operation so that people can be registered for free school meals automatically, rather than having to go through the process?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want all children eligible for the pupil premium and free school meals to be properly registered. We have done a lot of work to try to make sure that that is the case. As my hon. Friend sets out, there is still a challenge ahead of us, and I am looking at what we can do to try to make further progress because it matters.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I do not resent in any way the idea that Members are representing their constituents in rural areas. If particular concerns need to be taken into account, it is right to do so. The problem I have is that that should not be at the cost of urban schools, where significant levels of deprivation exist. In Oldham, the current proposals could see a loss of over £400 per pupil under the new formula; and for some schools, up to £600 per pupil could be taken away from the council’s budget. The town is already struggling to recruit and retain good-quality, high-performing teachers. We know that because it is one of the areas being looked at by the Department for special intervention. May I have an absolute commitment from the Secretary of State that we will not get into a “them versus them” argument, but that a proper review will take place to make sure that every school has sufficient funding to meet its demand and needs?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Secretary of State answers the question, let me say that I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some leeway because he has waited a long time to put his question. However, it does not follow that he should take twice as long to put it. I do not criticise him specifically today, but I hope that we can be a little faster now.
Justine Greening
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to see the impact on his own local constituency, but I think this formula is a step forward to make sure that wherever children are, funding is there. As I have said on a number of occasions, it very much bakes into the formula the idea of having money follow disadvantage and need. I think that is the right approach to take.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the schools Minister for listening to my concerns and those of so many of us from the south-west about school funding. I congratulate them on correcting the real unfairness in the funding that schools in the Wells constituency have had to endure for too long. Does she agree that this is the start of a series of investments in the south-west that will correct an imbalance in funding to our region, and that she has blazed a trail that other Departments will surely follow?
Justine Greening
That was a fantastic question. I, too, would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), for the work he has done on this complex project that we have undertaken. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) is absolutely right that we want to see children in the south-west achieve their potential. This is a funding formula that will mean—I think, for the first time—fair funding, which I believe will help a number of a children, and perhaps some of the children in my hon. Friend’s local community.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am delighted to speak as a Member from the county of Cambridge, which has for decades been one of the lowest funded councils in the whole country. I would like to press my right hon. Friend a little further on the interim funding, which some Members have mentioned. I do not wish to be ungrateful, but last year the interim funding was completely swallowed up with pension and national insurance increases. We are building schools like they are going out of fashion. It has to be subsidised, but the funding has to come out of the main pot while, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) said, the number of pupils is going up. There is a high cost of living and an average mortgage is 16 times the salary in South Cambridgeshire, so please, please, please will my right hon. Friend look at the interim funding again, because just the same is not going to be enough?
Justine Greening
We will be rolling forward, but my hon. Friend’s point underlines why it is important that we move on beyond an interim approach to put in place a final funding formula. That is what the consultation is on. As my hon. Friend says, it will affect areas that have been underfunded for a very long time. That is why we need to get on with it.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
West Suffolk—[Interruption.] I always do my best to help my colleagues, but I mean West Sussex, which has historically suffered from very low funding and very high costs, being outside the London weighting. Can the Secretary of State give me any reassurance that we will benefit from the area cost adjustment?
Justine Greening
I hope my hon. Friend will see some improvement in how the funding works, following the introduction of the fair funding formula. He mentions costs, which is precisely why one of the key factors we built into the formula is an area cost adjustment to make sure that schools in locations with higher innate cost bases have that reflected in the funding that pupils have attached to them.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I welcome the statement. Does the Secretary of State agree that it starts to address the myth that constituencies such as Cheltenham in Gloucestershire do not have areas of deprivation? The reality is that Cheltenham has intense urban challenges. This formula is starting to address funding on the basis of need and not postcode.
Justine Greening
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Up to now, school funding has been the ultimate postcode lottery, and funding has been overly determined by where children were growing up. That is completely unacceptable. If we are to make Britain, and in this case schools in England, a country with schools where all children can progress, we have to get on with fair funding.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The prize for patience—this shows what happens when you sit behind the Speaker’s Chair—goes to Jason McCartney.
Jason McCartney
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and merry Christmas to you.
How far will the inclusion of a sparsity factor go in protecting the small and rural schools that are so important to my local community?
Justine Greening
I think it will help. It will go together with a fixed lump sum, which is also part of this formula. Overall and on average, small rural schools will benefit from the formula.
Points of Order
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Government plans were announced last week to close half of Glasgow’s jobcentres. We were supposed to be getting a consultation on three out of eight of these closures. I have raised the matter of access to that consultation with the Leader of the House and with the responsible Department for Work and Pensions Minister. A week later, it still does not appear on the DWP website. Given that this is happening over Christmas, I am sure you can understand my frustration and that of my constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some guidance on how I can make the Minister get this up on the website? It is really not on that, a week later, it is still not there for public consumption.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his having indicated to me that he intended to make it. He will appreciate that it is not, of course, a matter that I can address from the Chair. The Chair has no power whatsoever to make Ministers do what Members ask them to do. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have, with some passion and understandable commitment, raised this matter several times in the House. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall next week. I hope that is right, because that is the correct place in which to air a matter such as this in some detail. At the same time, with the hon. Gentleman having raised the matter now at this busy time in the Chamber, I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted what he has said. They will have appreciated that the matter is one of great importance in his constituency, so action might come soon from the relevant Department.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s Question Time, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) raised the important issue of Southern’s appalling service and the present strikes that are victimising passengers. However, the hon. Lady failed to condemn the RMT and ASLEF unions and failed to declare an interest in the Chamber as a recipient of RMT funding. As a new Member, can you please advise me on the protocol for such declarations of interest in the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important matter. In order to keep the proceedings of this place open and accountable, it is vital that, when appropriate, Members always declare an interest where they have one. However, it is not a matter for a Chair or for me to make a judgment as to whether any particular Member should have declared an interest at any particular point. I say to the hon. Lady, and more generally to the House, that Members would be advised to err on the side of openness and accountability. When they think that there might be an interest to declare, they really ought to declare that interest.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will understand my delight and pleasure at coming out at No. 2 in the shuffle for International Trade questions tomorrow. My question was about whether the Department had made an assessment of the potential effect of leaving the EU customs union on levels of employment. I subsequently received an email from the Department saying that the matter had been transferred to the Department for Exiting the European Union. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) has a question on the Order Paper about the impact of leaving the customs union on levels of foreign investment into the UK, and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) has a question about the potential effect of leaving the customs union on future trade agreements. How can we know to which Department to address our questions? I can quite understand why the Department for International Trade does not want to answer my question, which relates to a large increase in unemployment, but can we have some consistency from the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I fully appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but she knows that it is not a matter for the Chair to decide which Department should answer which question. That is, and always has been, a matter for the Government to allocate. I understand the hon. Lady’s disappointment and that she was hoping to have her question addressed on the Floor of the House tomorrow, but I will say two things. First, regardless of which Department answers her question, I am sure that she will get the same answer. Secondly, having so eloquently made her point today, I hope that Mr Speaker will look favourably upon the hon. Lady when he calls the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) or the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) to ask their questions tomorrow of the Secretary of State for International Trade and that the hon. Lady might well have an opportunity to ask her question. Whether she gets an answer is not a matter for me.
Financial Regulation of Funeral Services
Wednesday 14th December 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Financial Regulation of Funeral Services Bill 2016-17 View all Financial Regulation of Funeral Services 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
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require pre-paid funeral plan contracts to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority; to amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 accordingly; and for connected purposes.
I rise to propose this Bill as a result of “Funeral Poverty in Scotland”, a report commissioned by the Scottish Government and published in February this year. It was written by Citizens Advice Scotland and John Birrell, who chairs the Scottish working group on funeral poverty. The Scottish Government have accepted this excellent report, which has a series of recommendations, including the need to address the regulation of prepaid funeral plans. I thank Fraser Sutherland from CAS and John Birrell for their work with me on this Bill proposal. I also wish to thank the Fair Funerals Campaign, which has supported me in the run up to today.
Before I begin my speech in earnest, I should say that I am an advocate of funeral plans as the best means of avoiding funeral poverty, allowing people to pay in advance, in full or in instalments, for their own funeral. I have also had meetings with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Funeral Planning Authority, the industry’s internal regulator, to discuss the proposal, and they were both constructive in their response. It was also welcome to see supportive statements this morning from the National Association of Funeral Directors and from Dignity, one of the largest funeral plan providers. We are approaching a consensus on change being required.
I am proposing this Bill in the context of a 90% rise in the cost of funerals over the last decade. In my area, North Lanarkshire Council increased burial and cremation charges by 39% last year—the steepest rise in Scotland—and the average funeral cost has risen 7% in the last year in Scotland as a result. After paying for an average funeral in the UK today, there is unlikely to be much change from £4,000. The Scottish Government are taking action in those areas and will next year publish a funeral costs plan to address the main drivers of funeral poverty. When the Scottish Government take on responsibility for the benefit, they are also committing to process applications for funeral payments within 10 working days to reduce the reliance on borrowing to pay for funerals.
The additional costs are placing an unbearable burden on the already stretched finances of bereaved families, many of whom are getting into serious and unmanageable debt when they lose a loved one, as has been raised in the House by, among others, the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), both of whom both support the Bill, and the hon. Members for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). People are rightly turning to funeral plans as a way of addressing that incredible financial pressure, which often arrives suddenly on family members. Funeral plans are like vouchers for funerals that are paid in advance and redeemed when the policy holder passes away. People can sign a contract describing how they want their funeral to take place and pay for it in advance. There is also an added advantage in that people can secure the funeral at today’s prices.
Funeral plans are described in article 59 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 and article 60 details how the plans can be exempted from FCA regulation if the funeral plan company undertakes to secure the sums paid by the customer through whole life insurance or if they hold the funds in trust—with some further stipulations about how the trust should be constituted and thereafter handled. The whole life insurance market, specifically over-50 plans, is another area that needs to be considered and is addressed by the CAS report, but it is not the focus of this particular Bill.
As I said, I spoke to the chief executive of the FPA and he understands my concerns and those raised by CAS. I also appreciate that he is not responsible for all funeral plans sold and that the FPA does all it can to satisfy complaints when they arise, but a debate is necessary on whether the current system is the best to ensure consumer confidence in what is going to be an ever more important area of the market in coming years.
In compiling the report, Citizens Advice Scotland found evidence of apparent mis-selling by some funeral plan salespeople. Some funeral plans cover all associated costs for the funeral, but others cover only basic funeral director costs. It has been suggested that some salespeople are misleading customers about what is included in the contract they are signing up to. One member of a focus group quoted in the report said:
“They were very pushy and I think trying to pull the wool over my eyes. I knew the amount they were quoting wasn’t enough to cover the cost, so I think they can mislead people.”
That calls into question the practices of some salespeople involved in funeral plan contracts. Some of those are third-party salespeople who are paid on a commission basis for selling contracts, which makes me a little uncomfortable, as this can encourage people to chase harder for sales than to ensure the consumer is entirely aware of, or happy with, what they have signed up to. Charles Flannigan, the managing director of Donald McLaren Ltd, a funeral directors based in my constituency, has told me that when he asks his customers why they have chosen to take out a plan with him the majority say it is because they are fed up with cold calling by funeral plan companies. That is of major concern to me, and I know it will be of concern to others in this House. He has also given me numerous examples of elderly people who have been coerced into buying plans that either are more expensive than necessary or are where the customer has not been asked any questions specifically about the funeral to be provided. In one case, the funeral plan company apparently waited until after the 30-day cooling-off period to deliver the funeral plan documents, and explained that the funeral director of choice had refused the funeral plan but listed others who might carry it out. The gentleman had specifically purchased the plan in order to be with that particular funeral director, who informed him that he had been mis-sold the plan as it did not include all of what he had wished for his funeral.
Mr Flannigan is particularly keen to see closer involvement of funeral directors in the selling of funeral plans, so as to avoid unintended issues in the contracts arising. Heather Kennedy from the Fair Funerals Campaign has said that there are some excellent funeral companies that are rising to the challenge presented by funeral poverty—their processes and prices are transparent, they talk openly about money and make different options available. As with any other industry, however, there are others who do not, and are charging too much for their plans and at-need funerals. I hope that some of those areas of concern may be addressed here.
Another case study was highlighted by the east of Scotland citizens advice bureau, which reported a client complaint regarding a funeral plan. The client felt that no matter what she does she is not going to get the funeral she wants or had planned for. She was told when she bought the plan that it could be at any funeral director and it would cover all the costs. It later turned out, after she had signed the contract, that the nearest funeral director who will honour the plan is 30 miles away and she will get only the “basics” from the funeral director. The director she wanted to administer the funeral will not do it, as the plan is held with another company, and the plan provider has told her she will lose a lot of her money if she cancels. She has got nowhere with the complaint.
Finally, the provision of funeral plans is not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which protects against insolvency events, nor are these plans covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service, which provides an independent complaints and adjudication service free to the consumer. Although the FPA has taken action to address these criticisms, a bonus of this Bill being accepted and enacted by the Government would be that these schemes were open to offer additional consumer confidence.
In conclusion, I hope that by my proposing this very reasonable Bill, the UK Government will look seriously at this issue and engage in a positive dialogue to ensure that consumers who are often in a vulnerable and bereaved state are adequately protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Neil Gray, Patricia Gibson, Roger Mullin, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Liz Saville-Roberts, Diana Johnson, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir David Amess, Gavin Robinson, Carolyn Harris and Rosie Cooper present the Bill.
Neil Gray accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2017, and to be printed (Bill 112).
Opposition Day
Equality: Autumn Statement
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a) in the name of the Prime Minister.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the disproportionate impact of the Government’s policies on women; further notes that, as a result of proposals in the 2016 Autumn Statement, 86 per cent of net savings to the Treasury through tax and benefit changes since 2010 will come from women, according to the House of Commons Library; notes with concern analysis from the Women’s Budget Group which states that by 2020, in every income group, black and minority ethnic women will lose the greatest proportion of their individual income and that low income black and Asian women will lose around twice as much money as low income white men as a result of tax and benefit changes; and calls on the Government to affirm its commitment to ensuring that women and protected groups are not disproportionately affected by tax and benefits changes, to conduct an urgent assessment of the cumulative impact of its policies on women since 2010, to take the necessary remedial steps to mitigate any disproportionate burden of tax and benefits changes on women, to publish a full equality impact analysis with the 2017 Budget and to develop and publish a gender equality strategy to improve the position of women over the remainder of this Parliament.
It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this important topic. The advancement of equal rights for women is often associated with certain historical milestones, such as the right to vote, the movement to end violence against women and girls, and reproductive rights. Although those are obviously hugely important, the key facet of the ongoing battle for gender equality is gender economic equality. Many women never question their right to open a bank account, own property, or even buy wine or beer in a pub, but those rights, now taken for granted, were actually hard-won. For much of history, and even up to 40 years ago, women were not allowed to handle money, and having a job was seen as a sign of financial desperation. It was only in the 19th century that women were allowed to own their own home. Until the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, common law in Britain deprived women of the right to keep their own property or even hold their own money. As late as the 1970s, working women were refused mortgages in their own right, and were only then granted mortgages if they could secure a male guarantor. It is only since 1980 that women have been able to apply for credit in their own name, and it was not until 1982 that women were allowed to spend their own money in pubs with the confidence that they would actually be served.
Those changes involved fearless and outspoken people challenging the status quo, questioning out-of-date assumptions, and pushing Governments and society to the realisation that economic equality and independence for women must be the norm. Today, Labour is pushing for the next step in this battle for economic equality: for the Government to ensure that their policies advance, rather than hinder, progress. Unfortunately, all the evidence points to the Conservative party turning back the clock on gender economic equality, and nowhere has that been more apparent than in their major financial announcements, such as the autumn statement.
Research from the House of Commons Library, commissioned by Labour, has revealed that as of the most recent autumn statement, 86% of net savings to the Treasury through tax and benefit changes since 2010 will have come from women. That figure is up on the one at last year’s autumn statement, which was 81%, but remains the same as the one at the Budget earlier this year. Someone who happens to be a woman from a black or minority ethnic background is set to lose out even more under this Government. Joint analysis from the Runnymede Trust and the Women’s Budget Group has shown that low-income black and Asian women are paying the highest price for this Government’s failed austerity agenda.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about the disproportionate cuts affecting women, what that so often means in practice is their children going without? That is why we have seen a huge spike in child poverty, reversing all the good work that the last Labour Government did.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend, who has long been a campaigner in this area, is absolutely right about that. I do not understand why people do not consider the economic impact on the entire country if we hold back certain sectors of our population.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that more women who have children are in work in this country than in the rest of Europe?
Sarah Champion
That is a wonderful thing, and what we want is for them to reach their full economic potential, rather than, as happens at the moment, getting paid less than they ought.
The analysis shows that by 2020, individuals in the poorest households will lose most from tax and benefit changes, but in every income group, BME women will lose the greatest proportion of their individual income. Low-income black and Asian women will lose around twice as much money as low-income white men as a result of tax and benefit changes. The Women’s Budget Group has also highlighted analysis showing that disabled people are losing significantly more as a result of those changes than non-disabled people, and disabled women are losing more than disabled men. According to its analysis, disabled men are losing nine times as much income as non-disabled men. Disabled women are losing twice as much income as non-disabled women. By 2020, families with both disabled adults and disabled children will lose more than £5,000 a year as a result of tax and benefit changes, as well as services to the value of nearly £9,000 a year as a result of Government cuts to services. Do Ministers believe that that figure is acceptable and in line with assertions from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that their party is the champion of equality and fairness? We know that Budgets and policy decisions are simply not gender-neutral.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that she seems to be suggesting having no plan and no sustainability? Does she accept that welfare spending tripled in real terms between 1980-81 and 2014-15? We believe that that is unsustainable and does not balance the books.
Sarah Champion
I think I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Does she recognise that there are groups in our society now that are being made poorer by this Government? That is the position that we are in, and that is what the statistics are telling us.
It has been proved that this Government frequently do not recognise gender differentials, and that assumptions are made in policy making that include biases in favour of existing unequal gender relations. Women are particularly vulnerable to being hit harder by Government policies, for a number of reasons. First, social security payments make up a greater share of women’s income than men’s, as women earn less in the labour market. Secondly, women pay less direct tax than men, because they tend to earn less. Women make greater use of public sector care services than men, because they have greater caring responsibilities. Finally, women are hit harder by Government policies, because a higher proportion of women are employed in the public sector. I ask the Minister how those factors were taken into account in the drafting of the most recent autumn statement?
Labour has already committed to a gender audit of financial statements when in government, the aim of which is to make gender equality a significant element in considering and recommending policy options. That would ensure that proposed measures contained no legal, economic, social or cultural constraints to gender-equitable participation and that policies were implemented in a gender-sensitive and equitable manner.
That process, which is often referred to as gender auditing or gender budgeting, now takes place in more than 40 countries around the world. It was originally inspired by the early experiences of countries such as Australia and then given further momentum by the United Nations commitment to gender budgeting in the Beijing platform for action.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to two particular examples of best practice, in Sweden and Spain. Gender impact assessment is a relatively common instrument to support the gender mainstreaming of policy implementation in Sweden. It is strongly embedded and is carried out by different levels of government, from local to national. In national Government offices, gender impact assessments are most regularly performed when drawing up documents such as Government Bills and terms of reference for inquiry committees. The implementation of those assessments is conducted in the framework of the Swedish Government’s gender mainstreaming strategy.
In Spain, gender impact assessments have been required by law in the Basque country since 2005, in the framework of the Equal Opportunities between Women and Men Act. Since 2007, gender impact assessment reports have been issued on more than 500 decrees and laws. After seven years, gender impact assessment is a consolidated practice that is strongly embedded in the Basque regional government.
Those are just two examples to demonstrate that, when it comes to mainstreaming equalities into economic and wider policy, the Conservative party is light years behind some of our European colleagues.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
What gender impact assessment has the hon. Lady made of the effects of the 2008 credit crunch, and the record deficit that we inherited? Does she not recognise that the decisions that we have had to take were based on restoring the nation’s finances, which is in the interests of everyone, not just a narrow interest group?
Sarah Champion
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but why do women need to bear the brunt of this Government’s austerity?
Sarah Champion
I am sorry, but I am not having a conversation.
Will the Minister agree today to follow the example set by many other nations and produce recommendations on how equalities considerations can be better integrated into the policy process?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady mentioned that Spain carries out gender impact assessments. What does she think of the fact that, according to the global gender gap index of 2016, Britain ranks higher than Spain on inequality between men and women?
Sarah Champion
I ask the hon. and learned Lady to think how much better we would do if we actively audited what we were doing.
Legal and international obligations on the Government mean that they need to protect and advance women’s economic equality. The Equality Act 2010, which was introduced by Labour, enshrined in law the public sector equality duty, requiring public authorities to have due regard to a number of equality considerations when exercising their functions. Labour enshrined in section 149 of that Act the provision that any public body must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to “eliminate discrimination” and “advance equality of opportunity” for those with protected characteristics, which include gender and ethnicity.
The case of Bracking and others v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is one of the leading cases on the application of section 149 of the Equality Act. The principles outlined in the judgment were recently summarised by Mr Justice Gilbart in Moore and another v. the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and crucially include the following: that the relevant duty is on the Minister, or other decision maker, personally; that a Minister must assess the risk and extent of any adverse impact and the ways in which such risk may be eliminated before the adoption of a proposed policy, and not simply as a “rearguard action” following a concluded decision; and that the duty of due regard under the statute requires public authorities to be properly informed before taking a decision. If the relevant material is not available, there will be a duty to acquire it, and that will frequently mean that some further consideration with appropriate groups is required.
Specifically, I ask the Minister to outline how the most recent autumn statement, as well as policy announcements since her party came to Government, comply with section 149 of the Equality Act and the requirements outlined by Mr Justice Gilbart. Assumptions and reassurances will not suffice, and the public demand to see how the autumn statement and Government policies comply with relevant sections of the Equality Act and with case law. I ask the Minister to kindly make that information available through the House of Commons Library at the earliest possible opportunity.
We should not have to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that their policies are not disproportionately impacting one particular group and reversing progress on economic equality. Sadly, previous words from the Conservative party do not fill us with much hope. On 19 November 2012, the then Prime Minister spoke at the Confederation of British Industry’s annual conference. He announced that Government Departments would no longer be required to carry out equality impact assessments. He referred to equality impact assessments as “reams of bureaucratic nonsense” and “tick-box stuff”. Do the current Prime Minister and Chancellor agree with that analysis?
Suella Fernandes
The hon. Lady talks about progress, but what does she think about the fact that the gender pay gap has narrowed to a record level, and has been virtually eliminated for women under the age of 40? We have more women-led businesses than ever before. Should she not acknowledge that progress?
Sarah Champion
I have to say that it pains me that it is a woman Member who is asking that. Should I go back to my constituents and ask them to be grateful that it will only take another 60 years before they have parity of pay?
If the Government are set to continue their contemptuous attitude on equality impact assessments, will the Minster explain how else they have managed to show that due regard has been given to the impact of the autumn statement on those with protected characteristics?
The Government know how to conduct a proper audit of their policies on women and those with protected characteristics. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Women’s Budget Group, among many others, have outlined suggested methodologies very clearly. We have to ask why, in the light of the availability of those methodologies, the Government continue to be so evasive. Labour Members will not let go of this point. We will continue to commission and publish our own analysis at every future Budget and spring statement for as long as it takes the Government to do their duty. The question is how long the Government will continue to stick their head in the sand regarding the impact of their policies on women, disabled people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Will things change when the impact figure rises from 86% to 89%? Perhaps it will be 95%, or perhaps we have to reach 100% before the Government carry out an audit.
The situation has become increasingly embarrassing, as the Government continue to let women down time and time again. The Treasury refuses to send a Minister to appear before the Women and Equalities Committee to answer questions on the gender impact of the autumn statement. The Government have provided insubstantial data, and last year they voted down an Opposition motion on publishing a cumulative gender impact assessment of their policies. In their amendment to today’s motion, the Government point to their distributional analysis, which provides no overall analysis of the impact of the measures announced in the autumn statement on women, black and minority ethnic people or disabled people.
A few days before the autumn statement, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report criticising the Government for their lack of clarity both on how the 2015 spending review affected women, black and minority ethnic people and disabled people, and on how the equalities impact assessment had been undertaken. The Chair of the Committee, the highly regarded Conservative MP, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), said:
“Without the information we have asked for or ministerial evidence it’s not been possible to form a view of the Government’s work under the public sector equality duty. Promotion of transparency is a central aim of the Public Sector Equality Duty requirements.”
The Committee, numerous organisations and, indeed, the Opposition have all made it clear that the distributional analysis produced by the Government is inadequate for judging compliance with the Equality Acts. The evasiveness must stop. Women and those with protected characteristics up down the country deserve and expect better. Various Ministers have refused to accept the analysis produced by the House of Commons Library that is cited in the motion. If the Minister disagrees with independent House of Commons analysis, will he say whether the Government would be willing to produce their own and make it available to colleagues? It is simply not good enough for the Government to criticise the Library analysis without producing their own.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady explain whether the House of Commons analysis includes the national living wage? Two thirds of women benefit from the national living wage policy.
Sarah Champion
The problem with the national living wage is that it is a misnomer. It is welcome that it has been increased, but we are seeking a real living wage that brings people out of poverty, and we have not seen that.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that if someone represents a party whose sole interest is to conserve the wealth of people who already have it, it is absolutely inevitable that people who are unfortunately still at the bottom of the pile will remain there as long as that party remains in government?
Sarah Champion
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am proud that I represent a party that wants wealth to be shared, wants everyone to reach their potential, and will not leave anyone behind.
As I have stated, the Government know how to conduct an adequate equalities audit of their financial statements and policies. Clear methodologies have been produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and they have chosen not to use them. Will the Minister agree to explain to the House how future announcements can properly take into account the impact on women, particularly those from BME backgrounds? Will the Government agree to put an end to the ducking and diving and send a Minister to the Women and Equalities Committee to answer questions on the matter? Will they agree to publish a full cumulative gender impact analysis of their policies since 2010, and will they outline how the autumn statement, and future financial and policy announcements, will demonstrate compliance with the UK’s legal and international obligations?
As I outlined in my opening remarks, gender economic equality has been at the heart of the fight for equal rights in this country. Progress has been all too slow and the victories hard-won. The Opposition can be proud that almost every major piece of legislation that improves the lives of working women has been introduced by a Labour Government. It was a Labour Government who introduced legislative protections for women under the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010. The Labour Administration were the first since the second world war to accept state responsibility for developing childcare policy, and they introduced paternity leave and increased maternity leave. We brought in Sure Start centres, working tax credits and all-women shortlists, and we have more women MPs than all the other parties in the House combined.
In 2016, under the current Government, women in the UK are more likely to work for less pay than men. They are more likely to be in chronically low-paid and insecure sectors of the economy and to be disproportionately affected by unprecedented cuts to public services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Champion
I shall not give way, because other Members wish to contribute.
Unlawful maternity discrimination has become increasingly pervasive on the Government’s watch, with an estimated 54,000 pregnant women and new mothers forced out of their job every year. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, just 1% of those women have taken their case to an employment tribunal since the introduction of prohibitive tribunal fees of up to £1,200. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, as of the most recent autumn statement, 86% of net savings to the Treasury through tax and benefit changes since 2010 have come from women. Today, the Government have a chance to decide whether they want that to be their lasting legacy in the fight for gender economic equality. Ministers have a choice: do the Government stand by, evade their responsibilities and make life worse for millions of women in this country, or do they put their warm words into action, rectify their mistakes and create a new era of transparency and accountability on the impact of Government policy on women, disabled people, and black and ethnic minority people? We expect them to make the right choice.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“affirms that introducing tax-free childcare, increasing the national living wage, increasing investment in affordable housing, reducing the universal credit taper, boosting investment in schools to create more good school places and taking 1.3 million individuals out of paying income tax so far this Parliament will benefit all genders and races; welcomes the fact that there are more women in work than ever before; further welcomes the Government’s publication of distributional analysis along with the Autumn Statement 2016; and welcomes the action the Government is taking to develop a strong economy that works for everyone, regardless of their background.”
It is a great pleasure to move an amendment in the name of a female Prime Minister. It is the Government’s foremost aim to make sure that this is a country that works for everyone in our society, wherever they are from, and whatever their gender, race, age or background. To deliver that objective, we need to build a strong and stable economy by boosting productivity, creating jobs, and bringing our public finances under control. That is how we will be in the best position to create a sustained rise in living standards for all British people. Our entire economic approach is based on a determination to make people better off now and in future, in all parts of the UK, and across the full breadth of our society. That is why we reject the assumptions in the motion and believe instead that the plans that we have set out will deliver a stronger economy that works for everyone.
I want to reflect on the measures that we have taken to strengthen our economy in this way, because people, regardless of their race or gender will benefit from our work to restore the economy to long-term health, which begins with bringing our public finances under control. With UK debt soon reaching a 50-year high of 90.2% of GDP, we must pursue a credible fiscal path to make it fall. Over the past six years, we have cut the deficit by almost two thirds to 4% of GDP, and we confirmed in the recent autumn statement that we will deliver a surplus as soon as possible in the next Parliament, while in the interim bringing cyclically adjusted borrowing below 2% by the end of Parliament, and getting public sector net debt, as a share of GDP, falling in this Parliament too.
People across our society benefit from the business-led recovery that has been at the heart of our economic approach. We have made sure that Britain is open for business with our competitive tax regime, by cutting over £10 billion-worth of red tape, and with our extensive investment in infrastructure, skills and research. The autumn statement took that further with a whole host of measures, including the new national productivity investment fund of £23 billion over the next five years. It is as a result of such measures that over 1 million new businesses have started since 2010, taking us up to a record 5.5 million small businesses at the beginning of the year. By the way, I am pleased to say that about 1.2 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK are majority women-led—more than ever before—and they contribute about £115 billion to the economy in total.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
With regard to the infrastructure spending, which the Minister heralds as part of the recovery, how many of the jobs that will be created by that will go to women?
Jess Phillips
I will make a more substantive speech about that shortly, but currently in the construction industry 1% of jobs go to women—1%. I ask the Minister again: what percentage of the jobs created by infrastructure spending does he think will go to women?
Mr Gauke
There are now more women doing science, technology, engineering and maths A-level subjects than ever before, which will ensure that more of them go into such jobs. I am trying to understand the hon. Lady’s point. Is she saying that we should not be spending money on infrastructure because that will have a disproportionate effect, favouring men? The purpose of infrastructure spending is to improve our infrastructure in order to improve our productivity—productivity that helps men and women. That is why we are doing that.
Jess Phillips
I am absolutely not saying that we should not spend money on infrastructure. What are the Government going to do to make sure that all the infrastructure spending set out in the autumn statement is shared equally between men’s and women’s jobs?
David T. C. Davies
I am grateful. My right hon. Friend will surely be aware that Alun Griffiths (Contractors) based in my constituency, which builds motorways, has received a parliamentary award for its commitment to championing women in the construction industry. Perhaps we should look carefully at tenders and make sure that such companies are considered.
Mr Gauke
There is a very important point to be made about how we encourage more women to become involved in engineering and construction. Increasing numbers of employers are taking more steps to do that—Crossrail is another example of where that is happening. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) seems to be objecting to infrastructure spending, which is a strange position—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I can hear the hon. Lady—[Interruption]—and she should not be speaking so loudly when she is sitting down, especially when I am speaking. She will have an opportunity to speak soon.
Mr Gauke
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The global entrepreneurship and development index has ranked Britain as the best place in Europe for female entrepreneurs, which I am sure everyone in this House will welcome and want to see us build on. Our start-up loans programme is helping entrepreneurs set up a business or become self-employed, not only through a loan, but through access to mentors. By the way, this programme issues a high proportion of loans to black and minority ethnic applicants: BME-led businesses represent 24% of start-up loan recipients, with almost 10,000 loans issued to BME recipients so far.
Our support for business goes hand in hand with the historically high employment rate that we have in the UK, with today’s numbers confirming that the unemployment rate remains at an 11-year low, with employment remaining at near record highs.
Suella Fernandes
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government are helping women at work by introducing shared parental leave, flexible working hours and 30 hours of free childcare? Those have been pioneered by this Government, putting women first in the workplace.
Mr Gauke
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will deal with those measures in a moment.
It is worth pointing out that the impressive employment numbers are accompanied by rising living standards, which last year grew at their fastest rate in 14 years and currently stand at their highest-ever level. The benefits of this affect people across our society, but the House should note the evidence of particular benefits for women and people from black and minority ethnic groups. The number of women in work has increased by over 1.2 million since 2010. Indeed, the rate went up more in the previous Parliament than in the previous three Parliaments combined. That comes as the gender pay gap falls to the lowest on record, more women are on the boards or leading businesses than ever before, and there are no longer any all-male boards in the FTSE 100.
James Cartlidge
On the subject of pay, I refer to the excellent intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) made on the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who spoke for the Opposition and said that the national living wage was not adequate. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only international comparator for minimum wage is The Economist Big Mac index, which shows that the only country with a more generous living wage than this country is Luxembourg?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I did not know that and I am grateful to him for drawing it to the attention of the House. The national living wage, which was brought in by this Government, disproportionately benefits women.
The number of black and minority ethnic women in work is at a near record high, with nearly 400,000 women finding work since 2010, and the employment rate for people in black and minority ethnic groups is at a record high of 64.5%, its highest level since records began in 2001.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining what companies are doing to help women and the black, Asian and ethnic minorities. That is fabulous, but the debate is about what this Government are doing and how the Government’s austerity is adversely affecting those groups.
Mr Gauke
The logic of the hon. Lady’s point appears to be that there is no link between what happens in the economy and Government policies. What has been demonstrated over the past 10 years is that there is a very clear link between Government policies and what happens in the economy, and it is because of the policies of this—[Interruption.] We are the fastest-growing economy in the G7 at present, so it is going quite well, given that, among the major economies, we were the economy that was most affected by the crash in 2008. We have put in place an environment where we are creating jobs and seeing living standards improving, and that is happening across the economy for men and women.
It is, of course, right that we continue our work to address long-standing barriers to work for BME people, including through Baroness McGregor-Smith’s review, new support in schools, and new guidance for jobcentres and local partners. We have also set a public target to increase the proportion of apprenticeships started by people from BME backgrounds to 20% by 2020, building on good progress since 2010.
So we are strengthening our economy by managing stable public finances, backing our businesses and creating jobs. At the same time, we are helping people regardless of gender or race make their money go further in their day-to-day lives. That is why we confirmed in the autumn statement that we will raise the personal allowance to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. By 2020, it will have increased by over 90% since 2010, taking millions of the lowest paid out of paying income tax, and representing a tax cut for over 13 million women by 2018, compared to 2015.
We have also introduced the national living wage at £7.20 an hour to help over a million people on the lowest wages, and we announced at the autumn statement that we would raise this to £7.50 in 2017. The national living wage is focused on hard-working, low-paid workers, regardless of their gender or race, and hon. Members should note that women are expected to account for around two thirds of those who will benefit from this, with people from BME communities expected to gain disproportionately.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I understand what the Minister is saying about the national living wage and the increase in the floor, but on the 40% tax rate, only 27% of higher rate taxpayers are women, so the changes to the 40% tax rate disproportionately benefit men, not women. What are the Government doing about that?
Mr Gauke
Income tax in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Government. I look forward to seeing what they will do.
From early 2017, we are also introducing tax-free childcare to help working parents with their childcare costs. Parents will be able to receive up to £2,000 childcare support per child each year. We are also helping around 3 million households by reducing the universal credit taper, which will further strengthen the incentives for people to increase the number of hours they work and to earn their way out of financial insecurity and welfare dependency.
That goes hand in hand with our sustained investment in the public services that families value. That includes our focus on quality schools, with the highest-ever recorded proportion of children being taught in good or outstanding schools; the pupil premium, which will be worth £2.5 billion this year alone and will support pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds; and an investment of £23 billion in the school estate over the next five years.
Our investment in infrastructure—from the roads and rails we travel on, to the homes we live in—will help all. The recent autumn statement contributed to tackling our long-standing challenge to deliver more homes, with a further £5.3 billion investment in housing, including a £2.3 billion housing infrastructure fund to deliver infrastructure to unlock up to 100,000 new homes, and £1.4 billion to deliver 40,000 new affordable homes.
So our economic plans are based on delivering an economy that works for everyone, and that means an economy that benefits all races and genders. I note the efforts to analyse the effect of the measures we have taken on women and BME groups. Hon. Members will be aware of the research of the House of Commons Library and the Women’s Budget Group, on which the premise of today’s motion is based, but a cautious approach should be taken when analysing specific impacts on that basis. Their findings should not be considered without first undertaking an honest reflection on the flaws inherent in their research methodologies. Let me provide a few examples.
First, the House of Commons Library analysis looks only at taxes and benefits. That means it overlooks key parts of the broader economic picture, which includes the benefits to women and people from BME groups of a strong economy and rising employment and earnings. It also fails to take into account the public services that families value, such as support for childcare, schools and health services.
Secondly, the analysis has been based on assumptions made about how income is shared in any given household. For example, it is not reasonable to assume that the measure to limit support as part of child tax credits and universal credit to the first two children for new claimants will overwhelmingly affect women merely because women are usually the nominal payee of child tax credits, as the House of Commons Library did in previous analysis. This not only treats women rather than children as the beneficiary of child tax credits, but assumes that other sources of income, such as earnings, are not shared within a household in response to benefit changes.
Thirdly, the analysis makes a comparison with a world where benefits were uprated between 2010 and 2015 by the retail prices index, but RPI is a flawed measure of inflation, and it lost its status as a national statistic in 2013. So there are a range of issues with the methods used to calculate these impacts, and the findings should be seen in that light.
It is, however, right that we assess carefully the effects of any new fiscal measures on groups across our society. We carefully consider the implications of all our measures for protected equality groups, which includes gender, race and disability. That is in line with not only our own guiding principle of a fairer society but our legal responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. We publish information alongside the autumn statement about the impact of individual tax measures. We also publish a comprehensive distributional analysis to monitor how our decisions on tax, welfare and spending would support households on a range of different incomes.
Our commitment to fairness runs through everything we do. It goes to the heart of the economic approach we have taken since 2010. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer about her determination to keep taking every action to make this a country that works for everyone. That is why, for example, we have launched an audit to look into racial disparities in our public services, which stretches right across Government, covering every area from health to education, and childcare to welfare, employment, skills and justice.
This Government are fully resolved to make this a country that works for all races and genders. That is exactly what we are working to deliver through our work to build a stronger economy and to help people in their day-to-day lives, and that is what last month’s autumn statement continued to support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, I should warn the House that a great many people want to speak this afternoon. There were lots of interventions on the opening speeches—quite rightly so, because that is how you have a heated debate, and that is what this is. I make no criticism whatsoever, but that does mean there will have to be a time limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches. That does not, of course, apply to Alison Thewliss.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, particularly as recent figures indicated that there have been 455 female MPs in the history of this House. That is the same as the number of male MPs present in the House today—although not on the Benches, as we can see. That is an important point in terms of the policies the House pursues, because those policies are not always in the interests of women, and women’s interests have not been well represented over the years. We did not always have the 195 women we have today, although those women we have here today have certainly made their voices and those of their constituents heard.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who spoke very passionately and with great knowledge on this issue, and I absolutely support her calls for a gender audit because that would make a massive difference to the way Government policies are analysed.
Research from the Women’s Budget Group, which has been mentioned, noted that women’s incomes will be hit twice as hard as men’s by 2020. Women will be over £1,000 worse off by 2020; for men, that figure will be only £555. Women on below-average incomes will end up over £1,600 a year worse off under this Government, and female lone parents will be £4,000 a year worse off. That is a significant amount in a family budget.
Engender has suggested that, from 2010 to 2020, 86% of cuts to social security will come from women’s incomes. I do not understand how anyone could make up that difference. The research becomes even bleaker when we consider women from black and ethnic minority communities, as well as single parents, the majority of whom are women, and both groups are a significant demographic in my diverse constituency.
Government Members love their soundbites. For quite a long time, they had “a long-term economic plan”, but that has been abandoned, presumably because it was neither long term nor a plan. They now have a new phrase: “a country that works for everyone”. The facts and figures we have heard in the debate so far demonstrate quite clearly that this was not an autumn statement that works for everyone, and I intend to highlight a few missed opportunities in the autumn statement.
I come to the debate with some frustration. The autumn statement was an opportunity for the Government to make changes—to start a slightly new course with a new female Prime Minister. To use an example I have spoken about many times in the House, it is now 526 days since the Government announced in the 2015 Budget their intention to bring forward the pernicious two-child policy for universal credit and tax credits, which is due to come into force next April. In tandem with that, we have the medieval rape clause, which will compel survivors of rape to prove that their third or subsequent child was born as a result of rape. The policy has been widely condemned by faith leaders, women’s welfare groups, rape crisis organisations and organisations such as the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Ministers would do well to reflect on the seriousness of that widespread condemnation.
Interlink, from the Orthodox Jewish community, has done some research into the issue, as has the Resolution Foundation. Their figures suggest that this policy will push 200,000 more children into poverty. That is a significant figure. There is also a trap inherent in the policy, and families will not be able to earn enough to get themselves out of that trap. Interlink reckons that for every £1 extra a family earns, they will lose 75p as a result of this policy. On taking office, the Prime Minister spoke outside Downing Street about helping the justmanaging families in our society. This autumn statement does not provide that help.
When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she won plaudits for her action to tackle gender issues, such as forced marriage, domestic abuse and female genital mutilation. Her actions gave me some hope that this rape clause would be seen as utterly unworkable and immoral. When the consultation reports back, perhaps the issue will be tackled finally. I cannot see how this proposal can possibly work.
Instead of using the autumn statement as a means to ditch the rape clause and the two-child policy, the Government have put it out to consultation for 38 days. In the context of the more than 500 days since the policy was announced, that is a pretty small number. I await the Government’s response, but I do wonder what they expect the consultation to come back with. What do they expect vulnerable women to say when they are asked, in essence, “How would you like to prove your child was born as a result of rape?” It is absolutely despicable.
In this respect, as in so many others, the autumn statement was a missed opportunity. The Government’s austerity agenda is disproportionately impacting on women. It was a missed opportunity for WASPI—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and the Office for National Statistics estimates that over 2,600,000 women in the UK are affected by this policy. Despite the efforts of WASPI campaigners the length and breadth of the country and of my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), these issues are not yet addressed. Those women are not having that unjustness dealt with. That hugely significant unfairness, of which my mother-in-law is also a victim, ought to be one of the Prime Minister’s actions, both as a woman in that age bracket herself and as a feminist. Women should not lose out as a result of this policy.
The Government could also have done more in the autumn statement to address an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) has been highlighting over the past few weeks. Sadly, she is not well today; otherwise she would be here herself to raise it. I am sure we all send her our best wishes on her sickbed. The Child Maintenance Service is charging a 4% administration fee for the collect and pay service—a fee imposed only on families who do not share bank details to arrange maintenance costs—and women who have fled domestic abuse are disproportionately impacted. That is patently unfair, and it puts women and children who are trying to rebuild their family life at a distinct disadvantage. The autumn statement was an opportunity to correct that unfairness. I call on Ministers to make progress on this very significant matter.
Half of Glasgow’s jobcentres are to close. In discussion with DWP staff last week, Glasgow’s elected representatives were told that the equalities impact assessment on these plans would be done only after the consultation. The Government are proceeding with these closures, yet only three out of eight are going to consultation while the others will not be consulted on. This is completely inadequate. The plans were drawn up by looking at Google Maps to see how far one jobcentre was from another and which buses people might get. Some of the buses referred to do not exist any more because they have just been withdrawn. When I met representatives of One Parent Families Scotland, they told me that the women with caring responsibilities they have been working with are already finding it incredibly difficult to fulfil their obligations as well as dropping off their kids at school and nursery, and adding the extra burden of travelling across Glasgow on more than one bus will make it very much harder, as well as putting them at serious risk of being sanctioned. It is inexplicable that that would not be taken into account prior to these consultations being issued. It is almost as though the Government are deliberately making it so hard for people to claim what they are actually entitled to.
Another group who have missed out are the under-25s. The Government are keen to trumpet their “pretendy” living wage, but what they never say is that someone under 25 is not entitled to the same pay. Their day’s work is not seen as being as of much value as if they were over 25. The Government sometimes say that that is about experience, but it is not. For someone who walks into their job on their first day at the age of 25, the wage differential is £3.45 compared with somebody of 16 starting on the same day in the same job. That is patently unfair. The national living wage is not an actual living wage; it is a revised minimum wage that is out of touch with the true costs of living in this country.
The real living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation is being actively implemented and promoted by the Scottish Government. In Scotland, the rates of companies paying the living wage are going up. We now have 693 companies in Scotland, across a wide range of sectors and a wide range of sizes, that believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. The Government’s “pretendy” living wage will not deliver that. In discriminating against under-25s, the Government do not acknowledge that they have bills to pay. They are not going to get a discount on their rents, their messages or their costs of living. They are also, to compound this, not entitled to the same benefits as those who are over 25. It is completely ludicrous.
There is another issue that the autumn statement has not fully addressed—the tampon tax. The SNP was the only party to have that issue in its manifesto in 2015. As the Minister may remember—he was then the Financial Secretary—when I moved my amendment to the Finance Bill, he seemed to think that resolving this would be nigh on impossible to achieve, but I am pleased that he has been able to make progress. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), my hon. Friends and others around the House who have campaigned on this issue. Without that cross-party support, we would not have got nearly as far as we have with the Government.
Although the recent funding announcement in the autumn statement regarding the revenues from the tampon tax were welcome, I would like to press the Minister to answer a couple of questions. How many groups in Scotland have benefited from tampon tax funds? When, for certain, will negotiations lead to the abolition of the tampon tax? We are still waiting. Every month, when I go to buy more tampons at the tills, the Government are still seeing that revenue come in. I want to know when I am not going to have to pay it any longer.
I agree with groups such as the Women’s Budget Group and Engender that this autumn statement was a missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity on the rape clause and the two-child policy. It was a missed opportunity on pay equality. It was a missed opportunity for the WASPI women. It was a missed opportunity for all women.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. In respect of the Question relating to financial services and markets, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 151, so the Question was agreed.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
We will now proceed, to begin with, with a time limit on speeches of four minutes, but that might well go down to three minutes very soon.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Ever since the Tory party, which had stood for the old landed interests, was taken over at some time in the 1800s by a motley mixture of free traders, Unionists and small “l” liberals, the Conservative party has been absolutely committed to the principle of equality of opportunity in a society where anyone can succeed based on their merit, with no regard for their race, sexual orientation or gender. That principle is absolutely right and one that we maintain to this day. As a father of two daughters myself, I want them to be able to succeed in education, in the workplace and in the public space. I am delighted with the progress that this Government are making so far, and that our society is making so far, with, as has been pointed out, the lowest gender pay gap on record, record numbers of women in employment, the fall in unemployment announced today bringing it well below 5%—something that men and women can all benefit from—and increases in the minimum wage.
Yes, of course, we have more to do, but the autumn statement was not an opportunity to start spending money from the unlimited magical money tree that Opposition Members imagine; it was an opportunity to maintain the sound financial direction in which we have been going, which has led even The Guardian to admit that we now have the highest growth rates in the whole of the G7. It would be disastrous for everyone in this country—men and women—if the Government were to go back on that.
Of course, there are problems out there, and the Casey report, which came out a week or two ago, highlighted some of the many problems that we still face in the challenge of getting complete equality in our society. I am glad that the motion mentions the particular problems faced by black and ethnic minority women, which were also referred to in the Casey review. The most worrying statistic was that the biggest problems are faced by women of Bangladeshi cultural heritage. The report pointed out that cultural and religious factors and attitudes are having an effect. People have popped up to say that that was a disgrace and that we should not be worried about drawing attention to this for fear of being called racist. Well, I am sorry, but some of us have been pointing it out in this Chamber for very many years. I served on the Home Affairs Committee in 2008 when it produced a report on forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called honour crimes.
That report was absolutely horrifying. We heard evidence of girls who had been forced to marry rapists and who were unable to prevent British authorities from giving visas to the rapists because they were unable to speak out in public for fear of what would happen to them at the hands of their own families. We heard about female genital mutilation. We heard that schools are refusing to put up the number of the forced marriage helpline—in this country—because of concerns that it would alienate the local community. We know that political meetings are taking place addressed by senior Labour Members where men and women are segregated. I pointed out a few weeks ago in this Chamber that the Muslim Council of Britain—one of the so-called moderate Muslim groups—was linking to a website that told women that they should not be able to travel more than 48 miles without a male chaperone. I have drawn attention in this Chamber to the fact that some girls in some schools are expected to wear the full burqa as part of their uniform. I recently met members of One Law for All, who I am glad to say are currently giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the issue of sharia law. They are worried about the increased wearing of the burqa and the pressure that girls are under to wear it in some parts of London at the moment.
I very much hope people will understand that it is not the autumn statement that is causing a lot of these problems, but backward cultural attitudes displayed by men in some communities towards the women in those communities. I am very glad that the Government announced in the autumn statement that the £3 million tampon tax would be used to support women’s charities. I urge them to put the money towards charities like Karma Nirvana, run by Jasvinder Sanghera, who campaigns against forced marriage; One Law for All, which is campaigning against sharia law; and all the other charities that are reaching out to women in ethnic minority communities to bring about the equality we all so badly want.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I am speaking in this debate because this Government’s so-called long-term economic plan has failed, is failing and continues to fail women in particular. The motion states that
“86 per cent of net savings to the Treasury through tax and benefit”
measures will come from women. The Minister said that maybe that was not the full picture. Well, it is not the full picture because it does not take into account the many hours of unpaid caring work that women in our communities do, often plugging the gap left by cuts to local services—caused by this Government. Moreover, some women are paying far more than others, and women in low-paid jobs from the black and minority ethnic community and women with disabilities are disproportionately taking the hit from this Government.
When it comes to social care that is paid care, rather than unpaid care, we know that 82% of employees in adult social care are women, and that their hourly median wage is £7.10, but that often does not take into account travel time between appointments, so the true figure can drop as low as £5.75—well below the £6.70 national minimum wage. The autumn statement said nothing on social care, health, the NHS or mental health; as a result it missed the point and did not tackle the issues that we face as a country.
There was nothing in the autumn statement for the 2.6 million women who have had their lives changed by this Government’s attitude to the equalisation of pension ages. Those WASPI women have campaigned with dignity, but they got nothing from this autumn statement, as the Government continue to refuse to act for them.
On the tampon tax, can the Minister confirm whether the £3 million announced in the autumn statement is new funding or the remainder of the allocation from 2015 funds? I do not know where to begin with the tampon tax. The injustice of women having to pay that tax is not negated by the fact that money is given to women’s charities, because women should not be funding our own refuges. A tax that the Government hope to abolish—we stand with them on that; we would like to abolish it too—does not offer secure funding for our refuges, which need long-term secure funding. The Government need to step up to the mark on that.
This debate should not be taking place, because the Government should have published their equality impact analysis ahead of the autumn statement. Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether she plans to publish the impact analysis that was undertaken ahead of the 2016 autumn statement, to reveal its impact on women.
Nothing in this debate is new. It has been known for decades that cuts to public services have a disproportionate impact on women, because they are more likely to work in the public sector and to be using the services provided by the public sector, and yet it is women who often pick up the unpaid work that is left to be done when services are cut. We have known for decades that women are disproportionately represented among the lowest-paid in our communities, and are therefore now being disproportionately impacted by the cuts made by this Government. Given that this fundamental analysis is well known and widely accepted, one can only assume that this Government deliberately presented an autumn statement that they knew would disproportionately impact on women.
The Labour party has made a commitment that any future Labour Government will ensure that all economic policies are gender-audited, to ensure that they truly work for all. Not only has austerity failed our country, and especially the women of our country, but we need to remember that this was a political choice, made for ideological reasons rather than economic necessity.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
The Opposition motion is an attempt to attack the Government’s record on equality in relation to gender and race. I am saddened by it—saddened but unsurprised, because it is unoriginal, it is typical and it is an unfounded attack.
I would ask the Opposition to change the record. They need to dump their 1980s retro-socialism and face the facts. The Conservative party that I have been elected to represent, as a woman and as a member of an ethnic minority, bears no resemblance to the picture they are trying to paint in the motion, in philosophy or policy—in fact, quite the contrary.
I am proud that on this side of the House, our values of fairness, meritocracy and service inform our policies—our values of aspiration. We say it does not matter where you start in life. It does not matter what your parents did. It does not matter where you come from. You can rise up, by using the ladder that the Conservatives provide—not handouts and not dependency. The key to that is working, because that produces confidence. It engenders teamwork. It creates responsibility. We believe in the individual, not the state. We believe that taxation stifles enterprise, instead of empowering. That is what this autumn statement depicts, and that is what this Government’s track record reflects.
Labour’s default position of increasing taxation, of spending more, is unsustainable; it is not prudent and it is disempowering to women, ethnic minorities and disabled people. If we want to keep and empower women in work, and to empower ethnic minorities and disabled people, we need a strong economy. We get a strong economy by managing the books and the finances prudently. This recent autumn statement set out by the Chancellor is a real reflection of how we do that, with the commitment to raising the tax-free personal allowance to £12,500; raising the national living wage from £7.20 to £7.50 in April; aligning national insurance thresholds for employees and employers; rolling out 30 hours of tax-free childcare; and introducing shared parental leave and flexible working.
Those are all conditions that empower women, and when the conditions are right, we get the results, and the results speak for themselves. Granted, there is more to do, but the gender pay gap is the lowest on record, with more women-led businesses than ever, contributing £80 billion to the economy per year. There are no all-male boards in the FTSE top companies. Britain has been voted the best country in Europe for women to set up a business. Those are the facts.
This is a Government who create the conditions to help make work pay, to strengthen our economy in a sustainable and prudent way. In doing so, we are all empowered. We are all empowered—as women, as ethnic people, as disabled people, as people from disadvantage. It does not matter what your background is; you can achieve your potential, with no limit on your aspiration. That is why I shall vote against the Opposition motion.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
In the 2016 autumn statement, 85% of the net savings to the Treasury through tax and benefit measures come from women. Here I go again, as promised, speaking up for the 2.6 million women who have been adversely affected by this Government’s chaotic mismanagement of the pension age increase. Action to address the situation of those who have lost out is needed to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in the process of increasing the state pension age for women. An estimated 500,000 women born in the 1950s have been affected by the changes in the state pension. Changes to state and public sector pensions will disproportionately affect women, who already make up two thirds of the UK’s poorest pensioners.
I have nothing new to say, because hon. Members have heard it all before. No further explanation of the situation is needed, because Opposition Members all acknowledge that those 1950s women—the WASPI generation—are experiencing gross injustice. Today we are talking about equality, and those women do not have equality. The Government have the opportunity to redress that inequality, do the right thing and make appropriate transitional payments for the 1950s WASPI women.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome any support for women. Women make up half the population and contribute a great deal to our economy. We need to focus on ensuring that we have a strong economy, because through a strong economy we protect women as well as men, disabled people as well as able-bodied people, and people of all races. With a strong economy, all those people will prosper. I am pleased that our growth under this Conservative Government is second only to that of the US.
It is unfortunate that Labour Members focus on the negatives, not the positives, and that they do not seek to raise ambitions and aspiration for all society. I would like to highlight four positives in relation to women: for those who are young, for those who are on low wages, for those who are more skilled, and by way of international comparison.
First, I do not think that it is appropriate to talk down young women. Girls often do better than boys in school, and more women than men go to university. Secondly, I want to recognise the benefit of the Government’s policies for women on lower salaries. Men as well as women benefit from the national living wage going up to £9 by 2020. If, as the Opposition say, women are paid less than men, the policy will disproportionately benefit women.
Thirdly, let us not forget the strides that have been made for the higher paid. We have no all-male FTSE 100 boards, and the number of women on FTSE 100 boards went up to 26% in 2015, from 13% in 2011. Fourthly, it is important to consider how we are doing by comparison with other countries internationally. The World Economic Forum gender gap measures and ranks the level of equality of opportunity between men and women. We are 20th out of 144, ranking above Canada, the US and Australia.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) stated that she was proud of successive Labour achievements. She failed to mention that according to a Fabian Society study, only 36% of Labour councillors, 16% of council leaders and 11% of the most senior Labour staff are women. I want an economy and a society that work for everyone, of every race, gender and religion.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I am going to talk about the productivity gap, which was mentioned in the autumn statement. I am going to stick to talking about the autumn statement, because that is the subject of the motion. The productivity gap is, in my opinion, one of the things we fail on repeatedly because we forget half the population. Members have talked about the infrastructure spending that was announced in the autumn statement, but we all know—let us stop pretending that we do not—that that will mainly create jobs that are filled with men. I am asking the Government to do something about it.
During the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into the gender pay gap, Minister after Minister pledged their desire to do something about it. The inquiry found clear evidence that the segmenting of jobs exacerbated the gender pay gap. Ministers—including those who were on the Front Bench earlier—have sat in front of me and said that they want to see more women in science, tech, engineering and maths. I have travelled to the UN with one of the Ministers who was on the Front Bench earlier to talk about how brilliantly the UK was doing in that field.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady recognise the importance of the point made by one of my colleagues yesterday that even if the 500,000 jobs coming from the industrial strategy were all given to disabled people, that still would not close the disability gap, let alone the gender gap?
Jess Phillips
I do, indeed, recognise that, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We must all recognise that we have so much more to do in this area.
The announcement of billions of extra pounds in the autumn statement represents a real opportunity for the Government to invest in construction and engineering jobs, and in tech innovation. The money provides a lever for the allocation of money to be used not only to build and make things, but to achieve some of their other aims, which they have travelled the world saying they cared about.
After the statement, I set about asking Ministers how they would make sure this money—the money of taxpayers, including all the women who pay taxes—was going to be spent on our prosperity. I asked the Chancellor if he had plans to set targets for women’s employment. I wonder whether we can guess what he said. He did not say, “Why, yes, we will stay true to our word about women’s gainful employment and the breaking down of gendered roles in employment.” No, he said:
“The government has no plans to set targets for women’s employment to be achieved as a result of the National Productivity Investment Fund”.
It is clear that women will not only lose out from the cuts, but make no gains when the Government finally decide to start spending money. A huge amount of research shows that instead of always reaching for shovels when we spend on infrastructure, we need to see our people services as infrastructure. Investment in childcare and, very topically, in care services creates more jobs than any road building, and it also has double the effect on productivity by freeing up adults of working age from the extra responsibilities that stop them working. I need not say that that mainly applies to women.
I am asking for it to be made a condition in the tendering process for all contracts involving the commissioning of all this money on infrastructure that providers must have a plan showing how they will attract more women into such roles. I would ask Ministers to set targets and quotas, but I know that they will not do so, regardless of all the evidence in favour of doing so. They have evidence-based policies only when they want. No contract should be allocated without such a workable plan being submitted.
I ask the Government to monitor how many women’s jobs are created by the national productivity investment fund, so that we women taxpayers of the country can see exactly what we are getting back for our investment. Monitoring this will allow the Government to see if they are doing a good job for half the population. Just hoping this stuff gets done is no longer good enough. Government policy cannot be based on the triumph of hope over experience. The idea that progress will take another 60 years is simply not good enough.
Experience and evidence now show that only 1% of direct construction jobs are held by women, as are 14% of jobs across the entire construction industry, including all administration jobs. In that field, there is a 16% gender pay gap. We are therefore investing in a sector where women do not have jobs, or in which when they do get them, they can expect to be paid considerably less than their male colleagues. I want this investment in house building, road building, research and development, but I just want the benefits to be shared equally. At the moment, women are getting 1%, while 99% goes elsewhere. I am not shroud-waving or being negative, as Government Members say; I am standing here and waving, hoping that the Government notice that, on productivity, there is a female of the species.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The motion is about the autumn statement, but we must accept that this is not just about the autumn statement. We are talking about the cumulative effects over the decade between 2010 and 2020. Those with the lowest 10% of incomes stand to lose 21% of their income by 2020. This will affect people with disability. We have debated in this place the cuts to the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, and we know about the changes to the personal independence payment and about the removal of Motability cars, which will stop someone with disability getting work. We have also heard about the gender impact and the impact on black and minority ethnic people. The changes to tax have definitely helped men, and they have helped those who are not at the bottom. Sadly, those right at the bottom are probably not paying tax, so a change in the tax threshold does not help them. Some 72% of those on the 40% tax rate are men, so they are the ones who benefit.
Just in case the Government have forgotten some of the things that have happened in recent years, I will put my specs on and read the list. We had changes to child benefit, which is important because it is usually paid to the mother. There was a cut in childcare support within working tax credit, the baby element of tax credits was removed and the threshold for working tax credit for couples with children increased from working 16 hours to working 24 hours. There have been reductions in housing benefit support that hit women, as they make up most of the households with a single adult. Lone parents on income support now need to move on to jobseeker’s allowance once their child is five—92% of lone parents are women. The health in pregnancy grant was axed and Sure Start maternity grants were axed after the first child. There are charges for access to child maintenance services and, indeed, to employment tribunals, which affect women when they try to bring inequality cases.
There have been benefit caps and benefit freezes. Some 89% of the people who are hit by those are in households with children and 50% are lone parents. I say again, 92% of lone parents are women. We know about the cuts to come in universal credit and the “pretendy” U-turn on tax credits, as the cuts simply come in as universal credit rolls out. Paying universal credit to one person in the household presents a real danger where domestic abuse and manipulation are part of the family.
The key issue is that there has not been a cumulative impact assessment on all the changes added together for gender, ethnicity and disability. The two biggest groups that are affected are lone parents, particularly lone mothers, and single women pensioners. As we heard earlier, lone parents stand to lose £4,000—an eye-watering amount of their income. Women pensioners have faced a 19% pay gap over their lifetime. That means they have less savings and a bigger reliance on the state pension. Of course, we also have the WASPI issue.
What all that results in is a health impact. The Government talk about NHS sustainability, but the biggest driver of ill health is poverty. We faff around talking about smoking, weight and all the things people should do, but according to the Marmot report, the difference is poverty. The biggest change that has ever happened in public health came from changing the London sewers. We should be trying to eliminate poverty and give children a decent start in life.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate and for all the work she has done to highlight this important matter.
Since 2010, women have been hit three times harder by tax and benefit changes than men. Eighty-six per cent of tax and benefit savings have been taken from women. That is a further increase of 5% since last year’s autumn statement. Female-headed households will be affected the most. They will see the largest drop in living standards between 2010 and 2020, and that is happening under a Conservative-led Government.
In her maiden speech on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister said:
“If you are a woman, you will earn less than a man.”
That is absolutely true. The gender pay gap needs to be tackled now. The Labour Government closed it by a third, but according to the United Nations, on the current rate of progress, it will take Britain another 70 years to bridge the divide between men’s and women’s pay.
I have highlighted the fact that women are being paid less, but they are also paying the price of austerity. According to the Women’s Budget Group, women in work will be £1,000 a year worse off on average as a result of the autumn statement. Their male counterparts will lose £555 a year. As has been highlighted, low-earning women will be the worst affected of any group. Women who are employed and earn below-average incomes will find themselves £1,678 a year poorer.
The effects of the autumn statement are also detrimental for women who rely on the welfare system for support. The cuts, including the reduction in the benefit cap and the cuts to tax credits, child support and carer’s allowance, heavily affect single parents. Nine out of 10 single parents are women. For women in work the Government trumpet the raise in the personal tax allowance as
“lifting people out of tax”
yet ignore the 43% of people who do not earn enough even to pay income tax, 66% of whom are women and whom this measure benefits not one jot.
Since coming into government in 2010 the Conservatives have stated repeatedly that they have a long-term economic plan. With a new Chancellor and Prime Minister, in the autumn statement they seemed to change course and now promise to target the just about managing—the JAMs. Sadly, all I can see is them getting themselves into a long-term economic jam. I have to ask, who are these people who are just about managing? Do the just about managing need inheritance tax to be scrapped on homes worth up to £1 million? Is it helpful to give £21 billion in tax cuts to the richest half of households—are they just about managing now? Or is it just about managing to be able to afford to blow £1,000 on designer accessories? Many of my constituents can no longer just about manage. They are in fact not coping at all, having borne the unfair burden of this Government’s austerity policies.
If this Government want a Britain that works for everyone, they should not be allowing women to be paid less while paying the price for their unequal policies. In a spirit of positivity, I ask the Government to begin addressing the mass inequality they have dealt to UK women, and recommend that they start with a gender audit of their own policies and gender analysis of future Budgets so we can at least begin to eradicate the imbalance that burdens women here in the UK.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Quite a lot of percentages and stats have been mentioned. I will throw a few more in, but not that many, in the hope that we will not bamboozle everyone too much.
The Government have been saying that things are getting better for women and that the autumn statement must therefore be okay. They have tried pretty much to gloss over the fact that the autumn statement was written without considering the impact on the two different genders. Afterwards, they tried to fudge a response to the question that inevitably came. That is the situation, and it is not good enough—it is not good enough for the Government simply to fudge this issue.
The position that women are starting from is not a level playing field. More than 90% of lone parents are female. The gender pay gap in the UK is still 13.9% for full-time employees—that figure is from the Fawcett Society. Women are 60% of those earning below the living wage, by which I mean the real living wage, not the “pretendy” one. Women make up only 27% of higher rate taxpayers. We are starting from a position of disadvantage, in which there is a gender pay gap. The Government cannot simply say that they are not doing anything bad to women. They need to stand up and say that they will do good things for women. They need policies that make the situation better, rather than simply trying to stand still. As I have said, women do not start on a level playing field.
We should also really criticise the Government because they keep saying that the Library briefings and the evidence provided are wrong. They cannot say the evidence is wrong just because they disagree with it. That does not make it wrong; it simply means that they disagree with it. It is the same with the national living wage. The Government cannot call it a national living wage and then expect people to be able to live on it just because they have called it that. That is not how these things work. They need to make actual changes.
In November 2013, the Full Fact website did some work looking at Labour’s work and policies on the gender pay gap. It said that
“women just tend to be in the groups more affected by benefit changes.”
That is absolutely the case, because of the percentage of women who are lone parents, and are therefore managing a household on their own, along with the reduction in the number of benefits being given to people with children—because of all of these changes, which disproportionately affect women. We start from a position in society of less privilege, fewer opportunities and less advantage. The Government need to do the opposite of what they are doing; they need to be making positive interventions.
The speech about people being able to climb up the ladder was frankly rubbish. People cannot climb up the ladder. People of my generation are having more trouble climbing up it than those of the previous generation. Things are going backwards. We are getting worse. People from less affluent backgrounds, women, those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people have struggled more in the last few years to climb up that ladder than they did 20 or 30 years ago, when there was the possibility of that dream. The Government talk about how 26%, or something, of people on a FTSE 100 board are now female. For a start, that is nowhere 50%; moreover, of those heading up FTSE 100 boards, only five are women. That needs to be fixed.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate, and I am pleased that she referred in her excellent contribution to maternity and paternity leave, because I would like to focus on the plight of parents of premature babies, a group that really is struggling to manage. The autumn statement was a missed opportunity to offer them the better help they need. Although maternity provision in the UK is generally good by international standards, it does not work for parents whose babies are born long before their due date. These tiny babies, born too soon to live without medical support, can be on life support in incubators for weeks, or even months. The parents cannot hold them because they are encased in machinery with wires, tubes and bleeping monitors as they fight for their lives.
Paid maternity leave lasts for about six months, but it is triggered the moment the child is born; there is no flexibility if the baby spends several of those first vital months inside an incubator on a special care unit. That means that the child is doubly disadvantaged, first by being born too weak and frail to live without medical support and with illnesses that can often last for years, and secondly by being denied the full period of time that healthier babies get to bond with their parents. Holding, cuddling and breastfeeding are all vital to a baby’s healthy development, but a premature baby never gets back the time they spend in an incubator.
The stress of watching their baby struggling to live leaves one in every five mums of premature babies with mental ill health, which is another issue that the autumn statement ignored. On average, the parents of premature babies spend an extra £2,000 on the costs of overnight accommodation, hospital parking and eating in expensive hospital cafeterias. For many parents, that is money they simply do not have, and it pushes many into debt that they struggle to get out of afterwards. It is difficult not just for mums but for dads, too. They still only get 10 days’ paid paternity leave, even if their baby is born months early, so at a time when their newborn child is fighting for its life and the child’s mother needs help the most, many dads are sent straight back to work.
Those parents need an extension of paid maternity and paternity leave that takes into account how premature their baby is. There would be a relatively small up-front cost to the Government, but it would save far more public money in the long term by keeping parents in work, helping vulnerable babies to develop more healthily by having that vital time to bond, reducing mothers’ mental ill health and reducing the child’s need for later medical interventions. Of course, the human benefit for families would be way beyond any financial calculation.
I took a group of campaigners and mums of premature babies to share their stories with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), and I look forward to hearing her views on what she heard. I hope that the Government will reflect on the damage they have done to families these past six years and, in this case at least, do the right thing and support parents who need us to do the right thing for them so that they can do the right thing for their families.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for championing this issue so well today. I also thank all of today’s fantastic speakers. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for Croydon North (Mr Reed), from the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). We heard from them on a range of issues, from the gross injustice faced by the WASPI women, the disability work gap, the productivity gap and the benefit cap to the universal credit cuts, paternity rights and the fact that austerity and cuts have ultimately fallen largely on the shoulders of women over recent years.
Last month’s autumn statement was an opportunity for the new Chancellor to signal a change of direction and repair some of the damage caused by six years of Conservative failure. Indeed, we were told that our cumulative deficit would be £122 billion by 2021, a far cry from the eradication of the deficit that we were promised by 2015. We have seen six wasted years, in which the deficit has spiralled, debt has spiralled and productivity, which drives our economy, has hit rock bottom; six years of pernicious cuts and schemes aimed at dismantling and marketising our public services, which are now teetering on the edge of a cliff; six years in which the wealthiest enjoyed tax giveaways, while the most vulnerable saw their incomes savagely cut.
How did women fare in all this? I was quietly optimistic before the statement, given that we have a female Prime Minister after all, and she waxed lyrical in the days preceding the statement that the Government would help the so-called just about managing. Sadly, nothing could have been further from the truth. As we have heard, the autumn statement ensures that 86% of cuts will still come from women. There was nothing for those dubbed “just about managing”, no reversal of universal credit cuts, no reversal of cuts to employment and support allowance, nothing for our NHS and not even a mention of social care. The figures are even more depressing. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that real wages will not recover to 2008 levels even by 2021. This is unprecedented in modern British history, and that is before we even start looking at the gender pay gap.
The statement was sadly noteworthy more for what it was missing than what it achieved, but perhaps most disappointing was the Chancellor’s failure to address the disproportionate impact of the past six years on women. He had his chance. For example, Labour made it clear that we would support him should he fully reverse cuts to universal credit, yet he chose not to and announced a meagre change to the taper rate, which will do little to mitigate the effect of the wider cuts, which disproportionately affect women.
The House of Commons Library helpfully modelled the effects of the changes on different family situations. A lone parent on the national living wage with one child is set to experience a net loss of £2,600 in 2020-21, even with the reduced taper rate. Of course, that is a desperate situation for any family, but further analysis shows, interestingly, that single female adults make up 88% of total single adults in receipt of the child and/or working tax credits that form part of the new universal credit bundle.
Not only did the statement fail to address the discrepancy in the impact of tax and benefit changes, but the systematic failure to properly fund our public services impacts on women more than men. For example, the social care sector is in crisis. In fact, it is not just in crisis; it is on the brink of collapse, which in turn puts even greater pressure on our already creaking NHS. Yet the autumn statement did not provide a single penny. Not only is this situation untenable for all in need of care, but the chronic underfunding excessively impacts on women. Women are the main recipients of social care services and constitute the majority of both paid and unpaid carers. About 80% of all jobs in adult social care are held by women, and let us be honest: the majority of them are not very well paid.
The Government seem to be suggesting that allowing local authorities to raise council tax will address the situation, but we on the Labour Benches know that such a solution creates severe geographical discrepancies and will go nowhere near plugging the gap. In fact, in my constituency of Salford and Eccles it will not even touch the sides of what we need to fund our social care system.
I began by saying that the autumn statement was an opportunity for the new Chancellor to change direction. Sadly he missed that chance, but the Minister today has another chance to correct the gender imbalance that the economic policies of the last six years have created. We need to address the fact that tonight, in my constituency, some women are going to struggle to put themselves to bed because they have no access to social care, or indeed they might be the unpaid carers putting their loved ones to bed. Women will stay on late at work—just to counteract the entrenched gender stereotype in our dog-eat-dog job market—often working longer and harder than their male counterparts for far less pay. Some mothers who have been hit by the pernicious cuts of the last six years will struggle to feed their children and themselves. All these women will dream of a future for their daughter—a future that takes them away from the desperation and shattered ambition that has seeped into society over the past six years.
The Government talk a lot about aspiration, and we have heard some of their words today. Their words, however, are hollow, and the clock has, frankly, been turned back on gender equality over the last six wasted years, with an economic plan that has failed Britain and failed women.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
We have certainly had a wide-ranging debate today, if perhaps a little curtailed, touching on many subjects of fundamental importance to our society and indeed to this Government. I would like to thank Members of all parties for their contributions.
In truth, I think we all want to see an economy that works for everyone in our society, whether it be women, men, people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds —all groups. It is right to scrutinise our success in delivering on that. Historically, women and black and minority ethnic groups have been disproportionately represented in lower-income groups. We all acknowledge that, but we have not heard much from the Opposition about the broad action necessary to address that long-term historical trend. It is important to address it in the long term, which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) touched on.
We have just heard from the Opposition that “aspiration” is an empty word. Actually, at the heart of Conservative Members’ contributions has been the idea that it is aspiration that will address this problem in the long term, and that can be seen in some of the actions we have taken. We have sought to raise aspirations to ensure that the next generation does better than the current one, particularly in some of the lower-income groups.
What, then, have we been doing? Fundamental to everything—I realise that this is something that the Opposition will never agree with us on and will never engage with—is a stronger economy. That underpins doing the best for everyone in our society so that they can enjoy a greater level of prosperity and higher living standards. [Interruption.] The Opposition Front-Bench team can chunter all they want, but their failure to engage with the fundamental issue of having a credible plan for our economy, for bringing down debt over time and for putting our public finances on a sustainable basis perhaps explains why only five Labour Back Benchers were in the Chamber at the beginning of this Opposition day debate. It perhaps explains why large parts of the Labour party have lost faith in their own Front Benchers. It is a consequence of their failure to engage with the fundamental truths of our economy. That issue underpins everything that we have come here to discuss today, but we have heard nothing from the Opposition about some of the key issues.
In stark contrast, we have heard from Government Members about what we are doing to maintain the focus on making this country somewhere where our businesses can grow, where people can succeed and where we can provide more jobs and more opportunities for all working people. There is a stark contrast with the Labour record, which saw female unemployment rise by a quarter, whereas we have a record employment rate. We have seen 1.2 million women find work since 2010, including 400,000 women from black and minority ethnic groups.
The House should also note—Conservative Members noted it with pleasure—that the gender pay gap has fallen to a new record low. Yes, there is further to go, but all we got from the Opposition was sarcasm, instead of saying, “Yes, we have made progress and we want to do better.” But progress we have made, and it is all about laying the foundation for rising wealth for all working people. It means having a sensible fiscal plan to get our finances under control, and it means backing British business to deliver strong growth in our economy, without which we cannot create jobs for anyone.
I was slightly mystified by the dismissive tone taken by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on investment and infrastructure. I am glad that she engaged with the autumn statement announcements on infrastructure, but she dismissed the investment in road building, for example, as being about creating jobs in construction. That infrastructure money, whether for road building or digital infrastructure, is directly intended to help people start businesses and grow them quicker. Record numbers of women have started businesses in this country over the past six years, and it is evident that investment in improving our digital infrastructure is key to some of those companies, because women have been extraordinarily entrepreneurial when it comes to starting new online businesses.
Jess Phillips
Only 17% of jobs in innovation and technology are held by women, but we can look at that again.
Words have repeatedly, and wrongly, been put in my mouth throughout this debate. I never once said that I did not want infrastructure spending on roads; I said that I also want infrastructure spending on care. That money should be spent equally on women’s jobs and men’s jobs. All I am asking is that we record the data so that we can see if that works.
Jane Ellison
I am responding directly to that point. Infrastructure investment is about enabling the creation of more jobs and enabling more businesses to grow. We obviously agree on that point, but it is nonsense to say that men benefit disproportionately. We know that more women have started businesses and that more women are in employment, so the things we are doing to enable people to grow businesses and create jobs are directly benefiting all kinds of workers. That is fundamentally what we are about.
We heard from my hon. Friends—sadly, there was nothing from the Opposition—about the number of women on boards, the number of women in employment and the number of businesses being started by women. It is impossible to have this kind of debate if the Opposition will not acknowledge any of that or the progress made. They will not acknowledge, for example, that when the personal allowance rises to £11,500 next year, 1.3 million people will be taken out of income tax, 59% of whom are women. My colleagues talked about the investments we have made for working families through tax-free childcare, the reduction of the universal credit taper, funding for more affordable homes and investment in quality public services, meaning that more children are in good or outstanding schools. However, mention of that came there none from Opposition Members. It is as if none of those things have happened.
We carefully consider the implications of all of our measures both for protected equality groups, in line with the Equality Act 2010, and for households at different points on the income distribution. I refer hon. Members once again to the comprehensive distributional analysis that we published alongside the autumn statement. It showed—again, we did not hear about this—that only the wealthiest households would experience modest losses as a result of the measures in the autumn statement. That is why the top 1% of income taxpayers in our society today pay a greater share of income tax than in any year under the previous Labour Government, but we did not hear about that either.
We want to see women and men of all races and ages and from all parts of our country grow increasingly prosperous, and key to that is investing in a strong economy that produces jobs and opportunities for working people. That is what we have been working to deliver since 2010. That is why we have more women in work and more women-led businesses than ever before. That is why we have increased support for families and individuals in their day-to-day lives, whether through measures to increase the national living wage, which are ridiculously dismissed by Opposition Members, or by cutting income tax for millions of people.
Crucially, women are a much more important part of this country’s economy than the Opposition give us credit for. We are so much more than they would have it, from listening to their speeches today. The Government are here to improve the lot of all the working people in this country and, in particular, to support the ever increasing contribution that women make to our economy—and long may it be so. This Government remain committed to ensuring that that continues into the future.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Homelessness
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 289 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the number of homeless households rose by 44 per cent between 2009-10 and 2015-16 to almost 60,000; further notes that the number of people sleeping rough doubled between 2010 and 2015; notes with concern that across the UK 120,000 children will be homeless this Christmas; recognises that between 1997 and 2010 there was an unprecedented fall in homelessness; and calls on the Government to end rough sleeping and take action to address the root causes of rising homelessness.
With 10 days to go to Christmas, a record number of homeless people are sleeping on our streets, in shop doorways and on park benches. More than 100,000 children will spend Christmas day in temporary accommodation—children with no home, young lives scarred by insecurity and impermanence. That shames us all. Homelessness is not inevitable in a country as decent and well-off as ours. It is a problem that we can solve. We know what works, because we have done it before. The Labour Government reduced rough sleeping by three quarters, and cut statutory homelessness to levels that led the independent audit by Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to declare “an unprecedented decline”.
I had hoped that this debate, called in the face of rapidly rising homelessness on all fronts, would be the basis for fresh thinking and a new national will to put an end to the scandal of people sleeping rough on the street for want of somewhere to stay. I still do, but I am disappointed that the Government have rejected our motion, which simply sets out the facts. I say to Ministers and to Government Members who may support them today that they can delete our motion but they cannot deny the facts.
The facts speak for themselves. Rough sleeping fell by about three quarters under Labour; it has doubled under the Conservatives since 2010. The number of households accepted legally as homeless fell by two thirds under Labour, but has risen by nearly half since 2010. The total number of children in temporary accommodation has risen every year since 2010 to over 100,000 in England and 120,000 across the UK. For the avoidance of doubt, the source of these facts and figures is the Communities Secretary himself. If he or his colleagues on the Front Bench need to check, the figures are from Tables 1, 770 and 775.
Let us compare the feeble facts and figures in the Government’s amendment. The Government are pleased with the provision of temporary accommodation, when this can mean whole families sleeping in one bed. It can mean lights that do not work, no fridge, no cooker, no locks on the doors. The Government are spending more money on homelessness. The sums of £315 million, £149 million and £50 million are totals over a full year of Parliament and are dwarfed by the scale of cuts— £5 billion of cuts to housing benefit, and the Supporting People funding halved. Finally, the Government say they are committed to building more homes, when the number of affordable homes being built has hit its lowest level in 24 years, and the number of new social rented homes is at its lowest level since the second world war. In case Ministers have any doubts, the figures are from Table 1000 published by the Communities Secretary.
I warn Conservative Members to take with a large pinch of salt whatever their Front-Bench team say about housing and homelessness. Simply ask, “Is it working?”
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
The right hon. Gentleman says that we should take with a pinch of salt what those on the Government Front Bench say. What does he have to say to the Labour Mayor of London, who says that this Government have just given London a record level of funding for affordable housing?
John Healey
I would say two things. First, a large part of that is underspends from the previous period, simply rolled over. Secondly, this year the Government are spending in total about £1 billion on building the new homes that we need in this country. In the last year of the last Labour Government, when I was the Housing Minister and in the hon. Gentleman’s place, it was £3 billion.
I said earlier that the rapidly rising homelessness shames us all. It does, but it should shame Ministers most of all. The hard truth for Tory Ministers is that it is their decisions since 2010 that have caused the homelessness crisis. There are record low levels of affordable rented housing—last year the lowest since 1991. There is a lack of action to help private renters, while eviction or default from a private tenancy is now the biggest single cause of homelessness. There have been deep cuts to housing benefit and charity funding that helps the most vulnerable people, including the homeless.
The amendment mentions the private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I am disappointed that he is not in the Chamber. We back this cross-party Bill, but we set two tests for the Government on which we will hold Ministers hard to account: first, fund the costs of the new legal duties in full; and secondly, tackle the causes of the growing homelessness crisis in this country. I welcome the Bill because it draws on similar legislation that the Labour-led Government in Wales introduced in 2014. It is early days, but it seems successfully to have prevented two thirds of all households assessed as at risk of being homeless from losing their home. That is what good councils are doing, day in, day out, across the country, despite the toughest funding cuts and the toughest service pressures.
Exeter Council has cut the number of rough sleepers, against the national trend, with a new street needs audit and a firm approach to street outreach to make sure people cannot opt out of help. Manchester Council has brought together charities, faith groups, businesses, universities and residents’ groups in a new partnership to end homelessness in the city. Enfield Council has set up a council-owned company to purchase 500 properties over five years to house homeless Enfield residents and, of course, to act as a model landlord.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
In the right hon. Gentleman’s contacts with those councils, have they highlighted what they think the impact might be of withdrawing housing benefit from under-21s?
John Healey
It is a very good question. I have not met or talked with anyone who believes that such deep cuts, targeted so harshly on young people, will do anything but compound the growing crisis of homelessness in this country. The issue is one of the causes of the spiralling scandal we see, and it is one of the things Ministers really must tackle.
In one of the media interviews I did today before the debate, the presenter said she was shocked the other day to see someone who was homeless pitching a tent in the middle of central London. That will not shock my hon. Friends, and many of them may remember the mass homelessness of the 1980s and 1990s, with tent cities in central London. However, one of the biggest forgotten successes of the last Labour Government was the reduction of rough sleeping to record low levels. We introduced the national rough sleepers unit, a comprehensive intervention plan, ground-breaking legislation, fresh investment and a target to cut rough sleeping by two thirds, which we hit a year early.
However, the time has now come to do better and to end rough sleeping so that no one need sleep on the streets. This is unfinished business for Labour, so today I have made a pledge on behalf of the Labour party that we will end rough sleeping within our first term back in government. This pledge is backed by a plan to double the capacity of the housing scheme ring-fenced for people with a history of rough sleeping. Yes, of course, more street rescue schemes, better access to healthcare and more secure homeless hostel funding are all needed, but we cannot help the homeless if we do not build the homes. Under Labour’s plan, 4,000 additional housing association homes would be earmarked for rough sleepers to help them move out of hostels and rebuild their lives, with Government funding new social rented homes to replace them.
That would be the first part of a new national rough sleeping strategy. It would, in fact, renew a stalled programme started by a Conservative Housing Minister, Sir George Young, in 1991. This clearing house scheme works across London, but it has never been set up in some of the other large cities in this country—cities such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol and Leeds.
In conclusion, a Prime Minister who promises on the steps of Downing Street a country that works for everyone simply should not tolerate the scandal of today’s spiralling homelessness. The Government could do these things now. They would have wide support. The National Housing Federation has said today of Labour’s new plan that it will enable housing associations
“to boost their offer to the increasing numbers of rough sleepers.”
St Mungo’s, the largest homeless charity providing support for rough sleepers, says:
“We strongly welcome this commitment to ending rough sleeping and the call for a national rough sleeping strategy.”
We, too, would back the Government if they acted on Labour’s plan. Tackling homelessness can and should be a cross-party commitment, with a new national will to solve what is a growing problem. Let us hope that this debate helps start to forge exactly that shared determination.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that homelessness is lower now than its peak in 2003-04; further notes that England has a strong safety net, and that the provision of temporary accommodation means no family with a child ever has to be without a roof over their heads; notes that the Government is going further with legislative protection by supporting the hon. Member for Harrow East’s Homelessness Reduction Bill to ensure that everyone gets the help they need to prevent or relieve their homelessness; welcomes the Government's protection of £315 million homelessness prevention funding for local authorities and £149 million in central funding; notes in particular the recently launched £50 million homelessness prevention programme, helping areas all over the country to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping; and notes that one of the best ways to tackle homelessness is by increasing the housing supply, which the measures contained in the forthcoming Housing White Paper will address.”
Government Members welcome this debate. Nobody is hiding from the facts. Both statutory homelessness and rough sleeping are rising, and it is right that we discuss why that is happening and what we need to do to deal with it.
I want to start with a couple of party political points in response to some of the points that the shadow Housing Minister made, but then move on to talk about the substance of the issue and what needs to be done. The motion gives a slightly rose-tinted view of the record of the previous Labour Government. I am happy to give credit where it is due, and if Members will bear with me for a couple of minutes I will then happily take interventions. The motion would have us believe that from the moment the Labour party was elected, homelessness began to fall and continued to fall during its period in office. These are the facts.
In 1998, some 104,000 were people accepted as homeless. That figure rose throughout Labour’s first term in government until halfway through its second term, peaking at about 135,000 in 2003. Then, to their credit, the Government addressed it, and it fell significantly to 41,780 by 2010—[Interruption.] It is not insignificant at all, and I am happy to give credit for that.
Gavin Barwell
I will just finish the point and then I shall be happy to take interventions. The figure has risen since then to 56,500—not by as much as the motion suggests and certainly to nowhere near the record peak that it reached in Labour’s second term.
There are two other measures that we should look at, one of which is the measure of housing supply. The best measure of that is the net additions to the housing stock each year.
Gavin Barwell
I will cover the three points and then take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Over the course of the Labour Government, in the first year the figure was 149,000, then 148,000, and then 132,000, 146,000, 159,000, 170,000, 185,000, 202,000, 214,000, 223,000, 182,000 and 144,000 respectively. In not one year of those years did the previous Labour Government build enough homes, and in only three did they build more than the current Government are achieving—and that was at the height of an unsustainable housing boom that ended up crashing our economy.
The third measure by which we should assess the housing record of the previous Labour Government is affordability. In 1997, the ratio between median earnings and median house prices was 3.54. By 2010, it had increased to 7.01. I am happy to acknowledge that in the subsequent five years of the coalition Government it increased further to 7.63. Looking at all those three measures, while the Labour Government certainly did some good things, and I have no problem with giving them credit for that, the record is far less rosy than the motion suggests.
John Healey
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He sounds as though he is rehearsing to become the Chancellor giving an autumn statement or a Budget statement. This Government promised in their 2015 manifesto to see 1 million new homes built in this country. They are so far off track, even at the current levels, that it could take until 2025—five years late—to build the number of homes that are needed. The number of new affordable homes built is the lowest on record.
We are talking about homelessness. It is absolutely the case that when Labour came into government in 1997 we were faced with a rapidly rising trend of homelessness, just as we are faced with a rapidly rising trend of homelessness now. The difference was that Labour acted. The figure peaked in 2003, and homelessness over the next period was cut by two thirds. The question for the Minister is this: is he going to act now? Are the Government going to do anything about the rapidly rising and scandalously spiralling level of homelessness we see today?
Gavin Barwell
That was a long intervention that did not refute any of the points, but let me deal quickly with each of them. First, on supply, the Government are behind but not way behind, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests they are. [Interruption.] In 2015-16, the first year of the five years of the Parliament, we delivered 190,000, exactly as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) has just said, and to meet the 1 million target we need to be at 200,000 a year. I will return to the subject of affordable homes later, if the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will bear with me. The fundamental point that I was trying to make is that we could do with a little less complacency from those on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Bear with me for a second. There is no room for complacency on this side of the House, either.
Gavin Barwell
Let me develop the point; then I will happily give way.
Homelessness and rough sleeping are both rising. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the speech that the Prime Minister made on the steps of Downing Street, in which she said that the mission of this Government is to make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us. Sorting out our failing housing market and tackling the moral stain of homelessness are central to that mission. I want to spend the rest of my speech setting out how we propose to do that, but first I give way.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity today, as yesterday. I agree with him: Labour did not build enough housing units, and those of us then on the Back Benches pleaded with the Government to do so, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). I welcome the recognition in the Conservative amendment that supply is absolutely crucial. Can I tempt the Minister to go a little further and announce that the Government will abandon the plans that have kept jacking up demand by processes such as Help to Buy, which simply increases prices and increases homelessness?
Gavin Barwell
Until the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I was in complete agreement with him. He is definitely right to say that the main focus of housing policy should be supply, and when he sees the White Paper that the Secretary of State and I are working on, he will see that is the case. However, even if tomorrow we could start building in this country at the level that we need to build, we would have to do that for a number of years before there was an impact on affordability. To do as he suggests in the interim—give up any measures that are trying to help people to bridge the gap—would be a mistake, in my opinion.
Gavin Barwell
I shall make progress, and then I will happily take an intervention from the hon. Member for Ashfield.
I want to set out now the measures that the Government are taking to address this issue. First, we want to broaden the safety net and have more focus on prevention rather than cure. Current homelessness legislation gives local authorities responsibilities in relation to families, to people who are pregnant and to single people who are vulnerable. Other people fall through the gaps. The legislation also encourages councils to intervene at the point of crisis, not upstream when problems are first apparent. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is in the Chamber, but I think we would all give him great credit for the legislation that he is bringing forward, and the Government are very proud, in the 50th anniversary year of “Cathy Come Home”, to support that fundamental and important change to our legislation.
Gavin Barwell
I give way to my hon. Friend, but then I will come back to the hon. Member for Ashfield.
Wendy Morton
Does my hon. Friend agree that on the Friday when both sides of the Chamber came together to support the Homelessness Reduction Bill, the private Member’s Bill introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), it was a really positive day, and a good indication that both sides of the House can come, and are coming, together to tackle this issue?
Gavin Barwell
There is actually much more that unites us on these issues than is sometimes apparent from our debates, and I understand that it is the job of those on the Opposition Front Bench to hold the Government to account.
Gloria De Piero
Just one rough sleeper is too many, and there was one rough sleeper in Ashfield in 2010 when we left office. The number has now gone up to eight, and statutory homelessness has risen from 42 to 93. The record of the Labour Government was considerably better for those vulnerable people than the hon. Gentleman’s Government’s. Does he accept responsibility? What is his answer? Why has it happened?
Gavin Barwell
I am the Housing Minister, so of course I accept responsibility. I think I speak for the Secretary of State as well: we were both appointed to these positions by the Prime Minister in July, and our focus is on solving the housing problems that this country faces, which I think are deep-seated. The truth is that we have not been building enough homes in this country for 30 or 40 years, under Governments of both colours, and that is the fundamental driver of the housing problems that we now experience.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the Homelessness Reduction Bill that is passing through the House. I wonder whether he believes, as I do, that the most important thing about that is the fact that it mandates councils to provide 56 days of support to homeless individuals—for the first time, a really intense programme, to ensure that instead of no second night sleeping out, there is no first night sleeping out?
Gavin Barwell
The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has introduced does two fundamental things. First, it broadens the safety net and ensures that single people do not fall through the gaps. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) says, it encourages councils to intervene upstream to try to prevent homelessness.
Gavin Barwell
If hon. Members are happy for me to do so, I will make a bit of progress before taking further interventions. I will come next to my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
I have set out the first thing that the Government are doing. Secondly, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne acknowledged, we have protected homelessness prevention funding for local authorities—nearly £390 million in this Parliament. Thirdly, we have increased central Government programmes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £10 million in the autumn statement, bringing the total to £150 million over this Parliament. Fourthly, in relation to welfare reform, we have increased discretionary housing payments to £870 million over this Parliament; that is a 55% increase. I was surprised to see when I was briefed for this debate that 60% of local authorities are not currently spending their full allocation.
Fifthly, we are looking at the way in which Government fund local authorities in relation to temporary accommodation. We are looking at replacing the DWP temporary accommodation management fee with a grant from the Department, which will be more than an equivalent amount of funding but will introduce much greater flexibility. Some hon. Members may have received a briefing from the Mayor of London today welcoming that change.
Since the Secretary of State was appointed, we have taken a fresh approach to supported housing, ensuring that the local housing allowance cap will not apply and moving to a new model of funding that is based on current LHA levels but, crucially, topped up by a ring-fenced grant. I think we would all acknowledge the fundamental role that supported housing plays for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. It is absolutely crucial that we get the detail of the new funding regime right, and the ministerial team are determined to ensure that we do so. I encourage all hon. Members to take part in the consultation.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne talked about a pledge that he had made. To a degree, it developed an announcement made by the former Chancellor at Budget ’16 of a £100 million fund to create 2,000 places in low-cost rented accommodation for rough sleepers in hostels and, crucially, for domestic abuse victims in refuges, so that we can move people on from short-term accommodation into permanent solutions. At this point, I happily give way to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
Tom Brake
I thank my neighbour for giving way, and I appreciate what he has just said about supporting vulnerable people. He will know, because I made it earlier, that this intervention is about the question of housing benefit for under-21s. I do not quite understand how that fits into the Government’s homelessness prevention programme. Does he recognise that, as charities have suggested, if just 140 extra young people are made homeless as a result of the change, it will cost more than the Government will save?
Gavin Barwell
My right hon. Friend—I can call the right hon. Gentleman that—will be aware, because he served with us in coalition for five years, that what the Government are trying to do is to switch from the high-tax, high-welfare, low-wage economy that we inherited in 2010 to one in which people are paid more and keep a much greater proportion of what they earn.
Gavin Barwell
To be fair, I am still trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question. We are trying to reduce the welfare bill, and to ensure that we have a fair welfare system that provides help and support to people but does not treat them more generously than others in an equivalent position who are not on welfare could expect to be treated. That is what is behind those changes. I will make a bit of progress, and then I will happily come back to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones).
I have been working my way through the list of measures that the Government are taking, and next up is our attempt to deal with the up-front cost of accessing the private rented sector. One shocking thing, which underlines the point that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) made, is the fact that the main cause of statutory homelessness is the loss of a private rented sector tenancy. That shows how the supply issue is absolutely driving the rise in statutory homelessness. Rough sleeping is a different matter, and the acute housing problem faced by people who are sleeping on our streets is nearly always a symptom of a wider problem in terms of mental health or drug or alcohol addiction. Indeed, the briefing that I had from my officials suggested that in London, nearly 60% of rough sleepers are not UK nationals, so issues in our migration system contribute to that. In terms of dealing with statutory homelessness, access to the private rented sector is key. That is why the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement about letting agent fees—I am sure the Opposition welcome that announcement—is an important step.
Gavin Barwell
I was going to give way to the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), but she has moved seats. I will give way to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) instead.
Dr Huq
The Minister is a London MP, like me, and he has mentioned London. Has he in his surgeries found an increasing number of cases of entire families having to be moved to hostels with no recourse to public funds, which is entirely illogical? Does he not recognise the dismay there will be in Ealing about the mention of the borough in Prime Minister’s questions today? The Prime Minister appeared to blame the local authority for the £180 million cut to its budget. We have 12,000 people on our waiting list, and the cost of buying a home is very high, so does he not recognise that people will be dismayed about what has come out of the Government today?
Gavin Barwell
I am embarrassed to say that I was not present for Prime Minister’s questions. There was a memorial service for the victims of the Croydon tram crash, which is why I am dressed in this way, and that is where I was. I therefore cannot respond to the hon. Lady’s point about PMQs. However, I can say that, as a London MP, I see every week in my surgeries and in my case load the consequences of the long-standing failure in this country, for 30 or 40 years, to build the homes we need. That has happened under Governments of all kinds—
Gavin Barwell
Let me just finish making this point.
London is the part of the country where the gap between what we need to build and what we are actually building is at its most acute. I am sure that I am also speaking for the Secretary of State when I say that I get up every morning thinking about what we can do to sort out this problem. It is my sole focus, and I will come on in a moment to address the issue of supply. Before I do so, I am very happy to give way to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who is another fine south London MP.
Heidi Alexander
I find it absolutely remarkable that the Minister is trying to absolve the previous Government of any responsibility for the housing crisis that we now face. My recollection is that, in 2011, his Government cut the national affordable house building programme by 63%. Will he set out the consequences of that on the supply of genuinely affordable homes?
Gavin Barwell
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will return to that central question at the end of my speech.
Gavin Barwell
I am still responding to the hon. Lady. I cannot make myself any clearer, but if she thinks that I am absolving the previous Government of responsibility, I am absolutely not trying to do so. Let me say it one more time, so that nobody can be in any doubt about this: we have not built enough homes in this country for 30 or 40 years, and all the Governments covering the period share responsibility for that. If she wants me to offer some defences, I would say in defence of the previous Prime Minister, the previous Chancellor and my predecessors as Housing Ministers that they inherited a situation, after the worst economic crash in generations, in which the priority had to be to reduce the deficit. I will come on to the affordable housing numbers, and I hope my answer will satisfy the hon. Lady.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gavin Barwell
I will give way one more time, and I must then draw my remarks to a close.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend has already intervened, so I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter).
Dr Poulter
I thought the Minister was ignoring me, but I am sure he was not doing so. I commend his positive and constructive approach to this debate; indeed, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman also took such an approach. The Minister has mentioned rough sleeping and the need to move from crisis to preventive measures. In that connection, will he reflect on the fragmentation of the alcohol and drug rehabilitation services commissioned by local authorities and on the fact that those services are completely disengaged from what is happening in mental health trusts and the NHS, with people falling between the cracks? That needs to be addressed.
Gavin Barwell
I am very glad that I took an intervention from my hon. Friend, because he speaks with real authority on mental health issues. He is absolutely right that we need to look at ways in which we can achieve better integration of services. Many of the people we are talking about have profound and multiple needs, and we must ensure that all the relevant agencies are working together.
If the House will bear with me—I know many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate—I just want to make some final remarks to address the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham East. The fundamental thing we need to do is to drive up supply, and we will set out in a White Paper in the new year exactly how we propose to do that. Let me say a word specifically about affordable housing, on which the hon. Lady was pushing me. The autumn statement included three key announcements, one of which was about the flexibility of tenure. We inherited an affordable housing programme focused solely on shared ownership, but we have switched it so that housing associations can bid for affordable rent, rent to buy, shared ownership or whatever is most appropriate in their areas. The Chancellor has added an extra £1.4 billion to the affordable housing programme. As I made clear in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, we have also announced the London allocation of £3.5 billion, which is 43% of the national budget. As I said, if hon. Members do not wish to take my word for it, let me quote the Labour Mayor of London:
“This is the largest sum of money ever secured by City Hall to deliver affordable housing.”
He made that statement before London has got its share of the extra £1.4 billion that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement.
Let me end by dealing with the issue of affordable housing supply. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne was right on one statistic at least: the 2015-16 figures on affordable housing were very low—unacceptably low. That was because we finished one programme the previous year and the new programme was late starting. That is a feeble excuse, and the Secretary of State and I are determined to ensure it does not happen again.
To set out the facts, in three of the five years of the coalition Government, we built more affordable homes than in any of the last nine years of the Labour Government. The record of the Government since 2010—I am very happy to give some credit to our coalition partners—is that we have delivered significantly more affordable housing than was delivered, on average, over the last nine years of the Labour Government. I do not have the figures for before 2001. We have just put extra money into the budget, so we should be able to drive up supply.
I will end by making this point.
Gavin Barwell
No, I am drawing my remarks to a close.
What we need in this country—the hon. Member for Lewisham East was quite right—is more homes of every single kind. We need more homes for people to buy, more homes for private rent, more affordable homes at sub-market rents and more shared ownership homes. We need more homes of every single kind. We are determined to achieve that and, at the same time, to provide the crucial support on our streets to deal with the immediate acute crisis. To end on a positive note, I hope we can build a coalition around the vital change we need in our country to get us building the homes we so desperately need.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate about homelessness and I thank the Labour party for bringing it to the House. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on his contribution. It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary football colleague, the Minister. The thoughts of all those on the SNP Benches are with the families of the victims of the Croydon tram crash on the day of the memorial service.
Although we would prefer it if the motion focused more on the causes of homelessness, including the brutal benefit sanctions regime and the years of imposed austerity, we will support it tonight in solidarity, as we believe that action must be taken by the UK Government to drive down homelessness. That must include moving urgently to address the regressive cuts to the system that is supposed to support, not punish, the disadvantaged.
Before I begin, I wish to highlight one aspect of the Labour motion that is particularly troubling for me and for others across the House: the prospect of children being without safe, warm and secure housing at any time, but particularly at Christmas. Before we retreat into our party political trenches, I hope we can all agree that that is unacceptable and must be addressed. In Scotland, the number of children living in temporary accommodation has fallen since 2007.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should be doing more to reduce homelessness. Does he accept that we are working on a cross-party basis to reduce homelessness at the Committee stage of the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which is supported by the Government?
Neil Gray
Absolutely, I acknowledge that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) sits on the Bill Committee, so it is something that we are working on constructively. I will come on to other areas where I believe the Government should be doing more to address the issues we face.
Housing matters are devolved to each nation of the UK, so this debate offers me the chance to focus on what actions the Scottish Government have taken, using those powers, to address the problem of homelessness when it arises and to prevent it from occurring in the first place. Although housing policy is devolved, the reasons for homelessness are largely, in the public policy sense, the result of decisions taken here.
Homelessness can take many forms and has a variety of causes and consequences. Although it is sometimes thought of as referring only to those sleeping rough on the streets, an assortment of circumstances can lead to an individual being classed as homeless. Many live in temporary accommodation or stay on friends’ floors or with family, sometimes in precarious arrangements. Under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, a person should be treated as homeless even if they have accommodation if it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy it.
Just as countless types of people can find themselves forced to seek asylum or to migrate to another country when their circumstances change, homelessness can affect almost anyone, and for a number of reasons, such as domestic abuse, marital breakdown, disputes with neighbours, bereavement of a family member and loss of income—those are among the many reasons why someone could find themselves unable to remain in their current property and in need of support.
The key difference in the approach to homelessness prevention in Scotland from that in the other three nations of the UK is that local authorities have a duty towards all unintentionally homeless households, irrespective of whether they are classed as being a priority need. Clearly, for any individual or family, regardless of any other criteria, the prospect of losing the roof over their head means they should be entitled to all possible support in finding alternative accommodation. The abolition of the priority need criterion was described by Shelter as providing
“the best homelessness law in Europe.”
According to figures from Crisis from April 2016, homelessness in Scotland has been on “a marked downward path” for the past five years. Crisis has attributed that decline to the introduction of the housing options model, a process in Scotland that starts with giving housing advice to someone with a housing problem who approaches their local authority, to look at an individual’s options, given their circumstances, so as to match things up best and spot any warning signs for potential problems at an early stage.
In that regard, the most significant action has been the abolition of the right-to-buy scheme in Scotland. Graeme Brown, director of Shelter Scotland, argues that
“as the decades passed, it became clear that the impact of right-to-buy was to create more losers than winners in our housing system, significantly undermining wider efforts to improve social justice in Scotland…The initiative saw three social homes being sold for every new one built, representing poor value for increasingly limited public money…During the right-to-buy era, homelessness numbers soared and today still remain at levels far beyond those in 1980.”
By abolishing the right to buy the Scottish Government will help to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of local authority housing stock, at an affordable rent and with secure tenancies, to help alleviate some of the causes of potential homelessness that come with expensive private rents and the uncertainty about the long term that short-term tenancies can bring.
The Scottish National party is already committed to investing more than £3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament to deliver at least 50,000 affordable homes, with 35,000 for social rent. Housing supply is key to the matter before us today, which is why I am heartened by the statistics released as national statistics for Scotland this week showing that social house building is up in Scotland by 77% in April to June this year, with a 26% increase in starts on council homes to September.
As well as dealing with the right to buy, the SNP Government have attempted to address another factor behind homelessness by using their limited powers to mitigate the impact of the Tory bedroom tax. Numerous homelessness charities, including Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, have said that that hated policy is partly responsible for the rise in homelessness across the UK since the start of this decade. The UK Government’s own research from December 2015 found that on average only 0.5% of those affected by the bedroom tax have been able to move from their home; the vast majority of those affected by the cut have had to live with a reduced income, unable to move because of family proximity, school, work and the shortage of appropriate housing.
Last year the Scottish Government provided an additional £35 million fully to mitigate the cost of the bedroom tax, with £90 million invested in that mitigation since 2013. Around 72,000 households in Scotland have been helped through this additional funding, with about 80% of recipients being disabled adults and about 11,000 of them being households with one or more children. Abolishing the bedroom tax in full will be one of the first priorities once the transfer of limited social security powers to the Scottish Government is completed.
The recent debate on the state of the social security system, particularly as it affects those unfit for work, provoked by Ken Loach’s film, “I, Daniel Blake”, casts our minds back to his earlier televised play, “Cathy Come Home”, which the Minister mentioned, and which, in a similar social realist way, helped to highlight the problem of homelessness in 1960s Britain. There is clearly a connection between these two works. Both highlight the importance of a strong social security system to helping avoid such problems, and both illustrate what happens when a Government’s approach to an issue fails fully to take into account people’s individual circumstances.
The private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on 2 December, which the SNP supported, sought to do just that by establishing a sanctions review system whereby an individual’s circumstances would be taken into account before a sanction decision could be made. Such a review would include considering whether someone is at risk of homelessness and would go some way to personalising the sanctions system, although we would obviously prefer that it be scrapped altogether.
The Tory Government’s sanctions regime has had many catastrophic consequences for families across the UK, and clearly the increase in homelessness must be considered among the most serious. The regime has left individuals and families, often already vulnerable, without money for weeks on end, at a time when they are often being hounded by predators, such as payday loan companies, and can often lead to rent arrears and spiralling debt that can create a downward spiral leading to eviction.
In December 2015, research for the homelessness charity Crisis carried out by Sheffield Hallam University found that 21% of people sanctioned in the last year had become homeless as a result and that 16% of those sanctioned had been forced to sleep rough. Only last month, in response to the National Audit Office report that suggested there was no evidence that sanctions worked, Mr Jon Sparkes, chief executive of Crisis, said:
“We know from our own research that benefit sanctions are a cause of homelessness and have a significant impact on vulnerable people – including those who are already homeless, care leavers and people with mental ill health”.
For anyone in such a position, losing the support of benefits can be disastrous and make it even harder to find work.
The SNP is clear about the damage caused by UK social security cuts and will keep working with stakeholders to understand the impact of the UK Government’s planned local housing allowance changes on social tenants in Scotland. The proposed capping will lock those who need support out of either seeking it or being able to afford it.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On the point about sanctions for those with mental health issues and homeless people, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of a discretionary fund to help support them when they are at their most vulnerable?
Neil Gray
Yes, but it is clearly an acknowledgement that the system has not worked for these people. With respect, any move to get rid of the sanctions regime is obviously welcome, but far more needs to be done.
The gap between the LHA paid and the price of supported housing could see many at-risk individuals not receive the support they need from a residential tenancy. A sample study carried out by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations found that associations in Scotland that provided supported accommodation could lose between £5.2 million and £14.3 million per year. From 2019, the resources for supported accommodation will transfer to the Scottish Government. We are left with great concern about the LHA levels.
The Scottish Government have said that, once they have further details, they will work with their partners to ensure that supported accommodation is put on a secure and sustainable future for the longer term. With the cost of living set to rise, damning forecasts for the UK economy and little cheer in the autumn statement for low-income families, as we heard in the previous debate, it is important that the UK Government realise the damaging impact that austerity is having up and down the country in a variety of ways. This debate has helped to highlight this damage in the crucial area of homelessness. The UK Government should have little to ponder when they consider the growing emergence of people just about managing.
In the time left, I wish to touch briefly on a more general discussion about homelessness, looking at things from the individual’s point of view and understanding both the underlying causes and consequences of homelessness, which can be harder to quantify and address.
Crisis has carried out numerous pieces of important research on the causes and consequences, which have uncovered some particularly depressing statistics. On average, homeless people die at 47 years old, 30 years before the national average of 77. However, poor physical or mental health, along with dependency issues, are problems for the entire homeless population, whether they are sleeping rough on the streets, in hostels or in temporary accommodation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, but just to correct that point, it is rough sleepers who are likely to die at the age of 46, which is a tragedy in this day and age. The figures that he is probably looking at relate to the problems of so-called sofa surfers, who are those sleeping with friends or family or anywhere else they can find. The figures for those people, although they are homeless, are not as bad. We need to narrow the focus on to the problems faced by rough sleepers on the streets.
Neil Gray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am happy to confirm that, as I have said, homeless people die at 47 years old, and there are issues with life chances whether people are rough sleeping or living in temporary accommodation of varying standards. I think that is a point he will agree with—he is nodding.
Physical disabilities, mental ill health or dependency issues can also trigger, or be part of, a chain of events that lead to someone becoming homeless. Such problems can make it more difficult for people to engage with services and get the help and support they need. Too often services are not set up to respond to the particular, individualised needs of homeless people. Two thirds of homeless people cite drug or alcohol use as a reason for first becoming homeless and those who use drugs are seven times more likely to be homeless than the general population. There are high levels of stress and mental illness associated with being homeless, and it is not uncommon for those traumatised by homelessness to seek solace in drug or alcohol abuse thereafter. Indeed, 27% of homeless people surveyed reported having or recovering from an alcohol problem and 39% reported taking drugs or are recovering from a drug problem.
Although a small percentage of those classed as homeless are sleeping rough on the streets—it is all too high a percentage nevertheless—it is worth remembering the challenges and problems that such a dreadful situation brings and what needs to be done to address it. The 2011 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, “Tackling homelessness and exclusion: Understanding complex lives”, helped to highlight
“extreme forms of homelessness and other support needs,”
and the
“nearly half of service users reporting experience of institutional care, substance misuse, and street activities (such as begging), as well as homelessness.”
In conclusion, the additional challenges and underlying issues mean that while everything must be done by both the Scottish and UK Governments to ensure that a strong safety net is in place for those facing the prospect of homelessness and measures to deal with it, as a society we must also understand and seek to address the underlying causes and consequences that some of those caught up in this horrendous situation face, by ensuring that all individuals can access support from the agencies best placed to assist them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On account of the number of would-be contributors to this debate, I am afraid there will have to be a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect, but we will do our best to accommodate everybody.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
I welcome this debate brought forward by the Opposition. I have always said that one person who is homeless is one too many, so every opportunity we have to highlight this problem of modern society is helpful.
As we approach Christmas, I know that all those taking part in this debate will be particularly mindful of the human stories behind the statistics. I have one story at the forefront of my mind. On 31 October, I took part in a sleep-out organised by the charity Depaul at Lord’s cricket ground. I left here after the late-night Monday votes and slept rough for the night. It gives us some insight into the horrible realities, but I knew that it was for only one night and that I would be back in a warm bed the next night.
After sleeping rough, I was a little tired and jaded, but I was back here the following day, and my first job was to speak at a conference on homelessness at a hotel just over Westminster bridge. As I walked over with my assistant, we both saw that a homeless person was on the street, and it was clear to us that they had sadly passed away. I do not know the name of that person, who they were or where they came from, but I know that while I was sleeping rough just a few miles away, this homeless person had been out in the cold and the wet, and died in the sight of Parliament and in earshot of Big Ben. My assistant and I were horrified to witness that visible example of the plight of homeless people on our streets, and in recent weeks, I have read about other cases in other cities.
I do not profess to have all the answers to solve this social problem, but I do know that we should not let these people die in vain. For their memory’s sake, we should continue to do all we can to prevent people from becoming homeless and to address the many complex causes and challenges that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place.
We should also recognise the work that we have collectively already done. As has been mentioned, on 28 October hon. Members agreed the Second Reading of the Homelessness Reduction Bill, a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We all know how important Fridays are for our constituency work, but to see over 150 MPs here on that day was proof that the issues are being taken seriously by all Members. The Government’s support for that Bill is part of a package of measures, which I welcome. I am pleased to serve with other hon. Members of all parties on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill is being looked at in great detail, with cross-party support and a positive approach to improving things.
The Bill will ensure that councils can help even more people and will introduce a duty on local housing authorities to take reasonable steps to help anyone at risk of homelessness to retain or secure accommodation 56 days before they become homeless. It will require councils to take reasonable steps to provide support to any eligible people who find themselves homeless for a further period of 56 days, to help them secure accommodation.
I am pleased that the Government have, alongside supporting the Bill, announced a number of other measures and funding to help address homelessness and its causes. They are providing £500 million to prevent and reduce homelessness over this Parliament, as well as introducing a number of other schemes.
The Department for Work and Pensions temporary accommodation management fee is being replaced with a new Department for Communities and Local Government grant. That means that current levels of funding will be protected, but that an additional £10 million of funding will be introduced for areas with the highest pressures. The new grant will give local authorities more flexibility in managing homelessness pressures.
Central Government funding of £149 million will target prevention and reduction programmes in different ways. The £20 million trailblazer programme, for example, will enable councils to work together with other agencies to prevent homelessness in their area, while the £20 million rough sleeping fund will help those at imminent risk of homelessness or those new to the streets, and the £10 million social impact bond will help rough sleepers with complex needs. In addition, a total of £100 million will help provide 2,000 places in low-cost rented accommodation to help people move on from hostels and domestic abuse refuges towards independent living. Young people are particularly vulnerable, and it is important that they are supported into education and employment. The £40 million of funding for the Homelessness Change and Platform for Life programmes will support young people to improve their lives.
I am pleased that the Homelessness Reduction Bill will give local authorities new responsibility and new funding, but despite the challenges, I am pleased that local authorities have helped to prevent more than 1 million people from becoming homeless since 2010. I recognise that there is more work to be done and that debates such as today’s help us to keep the issue at the forefront of all our minds. We know, however, that homelessness is often not the result of one factor alone, because it is a complex issue. I am pleased that we are talking about it today.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Opposition Front-Bench team on their continued focus on the issue of homelessness and on the initiative to tackle rough sleeping. Speaking as an MP representing the borough of Westminster, nobody could welcome that more than me. Westminster City Council is, of course, at the frontline of the national crisis in rough sleeping. The council’s draft rough sleeping strategy, which is currently under consideration, shows that 3,000 people sleep rough over the course of a year—300 on any given night—and reminds us of the many complex causes and drivers that have led to the recent rise in homelessness. Colleagues have mentioned some of those factors, but one particular figure jumped out at me as an example of how the Government could learn about the importance of interconnecting services and the role that other Departments’ actions play: a third of rough sleepers in Westminster—32%—have been in prison. It is absolutely extraordinary that we are incapable of preventing people who have come out of prison from ending up on the streets. One in four rough sleepers in Westminster has been assessed as being at a high risk of reoffending, so it is clearly in our public interest to ensure that the crisis does not continue.
Rough sleeping is only the tip of the iceberg, however, and I want to spend a couple of minutes on the issues that were brought out by the “Temporary Accommodation in London” report by Julie Rugg of the University of York. It tells us about the drivers of family homelessness in London and points out that one in 10 Londoners are on a social housing waiting list and that homelessness acceptances have risen by 77% since 2010. Why is that? We have already talked about supply, repeating the figures and comparing records, so I do not want to do that again, but the Government must properly understand affordability. Even if supply grows—welcome though that will be—if accommodation is unaffordable for people at the lower end of the income spectrum, that will not solve homelessness and the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which we are coalescing around and want to see succeed, will be swimming against the tide.
The Rugg report also helps us to understand that the cuts to social security benefits and the local housing allowance, the benefit cap and other policies are driving homelessness, making it impossible for people on lower incomes to afford accommodation and causing landlords to withdraw from letting private rented accommodation to people on low incomes. According to the Residential Landlords Association, a staggering 81% of landlords are unwilling to consider homeless people on housing benefit because of the threat to their income from universal credit. In inner London, only 7% or 9% of accommodation—I do not have the figure in front of me, but the proportion is ridiculously small—is available to people on lower incomes. When the Welfare Reform Act 2012 went through Parliament, we were told that rents would fall as cuts to housing benefit were applied, but the opposite has happened: rents in London went up by 32% in outer London and 39% in inner London. That is a cause of homelessness, and the situation will get worse unless we do something about it.
The problem is not only leading to individual homelessness but costing local authorities money. London local authorities alone have spent £665 million on homelessness. Discretionary housing payments are always put forward by the Government as the solution to all the problems, but they are not, because they are temporary by definition. Until the Government understand that local authorities will not use discretionary housing payments to solve the crisis because of their temporary nature, we will end up repeating the problems.
Unfortunately, I do not have much time to talk about temporary accommodation and the fact that the squeeze on local authorities is leading to families spending this Christmas in appalling conditions. In particular, I ask the Minister to help me deal with A2Dominion, a housing association that is leaving many residents without heating in damp and mouldy accommodation. Children and families should not be spending Christmas homeless on the street, in bed and breakfasts or in nightly booked and insecure temporary accommodation. They are doing so in record numbers, and the Government must act not only through the Department for Communities and Local Government, but by co-ordinating with all the other Departments that contribute to the problem through their actions.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). I entirely agree with her that nobody likes to think of anybody sleeping rough at this time of year or over Christmas. Rough sleeping is the most visible element of homelessness, but she rightly pointed out that we must not forget those who are sofa-surfing or in temporary accommodation up and down the country.
I have been impressed by the tone of the debate so far, and it is important to note that no one party has a monopoly on compassion. Let me be absolutely clear: no Member of this House wants to see anybody sleeping rough on our streets or not having a home.
In order to tackle homelessness, we need to get to the bottom of it and understand it. That is not about attributing blame; it is about understanding the complex issues and circumstances that lead to homelessness. Fifty years on from the gritty BBC drama “Cathy Come Home”, where we saw life events such as homelessness, family breakdown and Cathy losing her children, how can we have people sleeping rough on our streets in the fifth largest economy in the world? “Cathy Come Home” brought homelessness to the attention of the public via their TVs and gave the issue nationwide awareness, but 50 years on, have we forgotten? Do we see the people sleeping on cardboard on our streets when we walk past? Do we really stop to think as we dismiss another homeless person who asks us for the change in our pockets? Do we judge those we see shooting up or drinking high-strength lager in doorways? Are they someone else’s problem? Is this the result of their bad life choices? Is it really nothing to do with us?
Hon. Members should not think for a minute that I am being holier-than-thou, sanctimonious or in some way patronising, because I openly admit that I have done it, too; sometimes it is easier to walk on, close our eyes and pretend that we do not see the great stain on our humanity that is rough sleeping and the fact that in this relatively wealthy country, people are sleeping on our streets in sub-zero temperatures, open to the elements and to assault, abuse, violence and sexual assault.
We hear that we have actually gone much further than just closing our eyes and that councils up and down the country, of all political colours, are fining homeless people just for being homeless, that we are confiscating their sleeping bags and bedding, and that there are companies in this city erecting anti-rough-sleeping spikes in doorways. Have we lost our humanity? I am pleased to say that I do not think we have, because charities and voluntary groups up and down the country, including several in my constituency, work tirelessly, night and day, running soup kitchens, shelters and other facilities.
I had a recent experience when a lady approached me while I was waiting for the 91 bus opposite Charing Cross station. I thought she wanted money, but she did not, and we talked for 10 or so minutes. She asked whether she could have a hug, and I said, “Of course.” I was a little bemused and taken aback, but what she was really saying was, “Thank you for treating me like a human being. Thank you for not just stopping and ignoring me.” She never asked for money; at that point in time she was just a woman down on her luck, feeling isolated and forgotten by society, reaching out in the hope that someone would see her and listen to her plight.
As I said, the issues we are dealing with are numerous and complex. I am very proud to serve on the all-party group for ending homelessness and on the Homelessness Reduction Bill Committee, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The Bill is one part of the solution in tackling homelessness. We know that the leading cause of homelessness is the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy, and the Bill will mean that councils will have to give consistent advice and no longer advise tenants to stay put until the bailiffs arrive.
David Mackintosh
Does my hon. Friend agree that section 21 notices are often the cause of people becoming homeless?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we know that the largest cause of homelessness is the ending of a tenancy, largely via a section 21 notice. The system whereby an individual comes to their council for assistance at the earliest possible opportunity when they get into trouble, and the council turns them away and says, “Come back when the bailiffs are knocking on your door”—at which point the person has arrears and a county court judgment against their name, and will never again be able to rent in the private rented sector—is failing those individuals, and it has to stop. The Government have already taken a large number of steps to tackle homelessness, and I will not repeat them, as my hon. Friend made them clear. Are they enough? Clearly they are not, as there is always more that we can do.
I am conscious that I have less than a minute left to speak, so I just want to touch on the private rented sector. I have mentioned that it is part of the problem, and we need to examine security of tenure and rent deposit schemes. We have a scheme for mortgages, via Help to Buy, and we should consider a help to rent scheme or a help to rent ISA. We need to work with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and insurers to lift the restriction on buy-to-let property owners offering assured shorthold tenancies of more than a year.
I am conscious that my time is up, but I will end by saying that prevention is absolutely key and that providing assistance at the first available opportunity is so, so important. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but there is still much more to do.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
On 29 November, a young man froze to death in John Bright Street in central Birmingham. Sadly, there is worse to come in Birmingham. If the Government go ahead with the biggest cuts to any council in local government history, particularly cuts to supported housing, it will mean—in the words of Alan Fraser, the chief executive of the YMCA—that “more will die”. Mark Rogers, chief executive of Birmingham City Council said that there will be “catastrophic consequences”.
I was born under Clement Attlee and I grew up under Harold Macmillan. It was an era in which a Conservative Government, following in the footsteps of a Labour Government, built homes on a grand scale—homes fit for heroes. I never thought that, in my lifetime, we would see programmes such as “Cathy Come Home”—that happened in the 1960s—and the office block speculation that happened in London in the 1970s, when homelessness was rapidly rising. I am proud to say that I was one of those who occupied Centrepoint in opposition to what was going on.
People on both sides of this House have been passionate about the cause of homelessness over many years. I have to say that I am proud of what Labour did in government, even if we did not go far enough. I am proud of the fact that we built 2 million more houses, that we created 1 million more homeowners, that we improved 1.8 million social homes and brought them up to a decent homes standard and that we cut rough sleeping by three quarters. It was a generation of progress.
When the coalition Government took power in 2010, they should have invested in a major house building programme, but, in a bid to get the economy moving, we saw exactly the reverse: home ownership falling; social housing in crisis with 140,000 fewer homes; a rapidly growing private rented sector, characterised by soaring rents, with the average tenant paying £2,000 more over the past five years; insecurity; and often poor accommodation. All those things have contributed towards growing homelessness and the doubling of rough sleeping.
Mr Speaker, you were good enough to preside over the opening session of the first ever homeless young people’s parliament in Parliament in 2012. It was a deeply moving occasion, and it challenged the caricature that, somehow, all young homeless people are druggies, drunks and drop-outs. Many of them were quintessentially middle England and middle Scotland. Their lives had fallen apart because their families had broken up. What came out of that parliament was: hear our voice; more affordable homes; and do not cut desperately needed benefit for young people.
After the young man died in Birmingham, the Secretary of State said that it was wrong and that we should do more. The problem is that the Government are doing less. Coming back to the city of Birmingham, which I am proud to represent, £800 million has been cut from its budget. Fourteen charities wrote only yesterday to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government saying that, thus far, the council has been able to protect the supported housing budget, but it will not be able to continue to do so. The consequences will be serious. There will be the same risk of another young man or young woman dying a terrible, cold death on the streets of the city.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that prevention is the key? The UK Government could look to the Welsh Labour Government, who in their Housing (Wales) Act 2014 have pledged £5.6 million in the first year and £3 million in the second year, despite cuts from the UK Government, to fund affordable rent as well as affordable homes to buy. They also pledged not to force local authorities to sell vacant properties to the highest bidder.
Jack Dromey
The costs of homelessness, in both financial and human terms, are infinitely greater than investing in preventing homelessness in the first place. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I applaud the Administration in Wales for what they have done.
It is too late, as Christmas looms, to bring back that young man. It is too late, sadly, to avoid what my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) referred to as the tragedy of 120,000 children waking up on Christmas day in temporary accommodation, much of it inferior and cramped. They are looking forward to going home after school and celebrating the day, only to be in temporary accommodation. It is too late, but the Government can do more, beginning, crucially, with the announcement tomorrow of the communities and local government settlement for the great city of Birmingham.
The next stage—the Opposition will certainly champion this—is to develop the great national will to build the homes that our country needs; to create the jobs needed to build homes; and to provide security and warmth, and all those things that matter to us and to the people we represent. Never again should someone like that young man die, but the Government have to act and do more.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Penzance in my constituency is often referred to as being at the end of the line. Despite the beauty and charm that attracts people when they choose a holiday destination, we are not spared the challenges, not least the difficulties experienced by many people and that result in their sleeping rough. In fact, we are often described as the end of the line because that is exactly what happens: people get on the train and stay on it until they reach Penzance, and then they sleep rough and are homeless in my beautiful part of the world, which has, however, a lot of hidden poverty.
In a civilised society, it is not right that some people have no choice but to sleep rough. The challenge is much greater than providing a roof over someone’s head. In recent months, I have taken a close look at the homelessness and rough sleeping issues in Penzance and other towns in my constituency. I have looked at the issues facing rough sleepers, and I have spoken to the police and to rough sleepers themselves. I spent a couple of days in the recent recess going out early in the morning and talking to them to find out what their problems were and how they reached that point. I have also spoken to charities and Church groups that provide support—an incredible number of resources and services are available for people in far-west Cornwall—as well as housing providers.
There are many reasons why people become homeless. Some of them struggle to adjust when their jobs change. I met a fisherman who, once he had finished fishing, could not settle into what we would describe as normal life. There are many foreign nationals in our part of the world. We have a lot of transient workers and people who work on part-time contracts for farmers. At the end of the season, they often do not have anywhere to go and they find themselves living rough.
As has been said, former prisoners are often homeless. I met a former prisoner who could not find the help that he needed to re-establish his life and rehabilitate himself. Because we are at the end of the line, highly skilled and well-paid people who want a change of lifestyle come to Cornwall to find one, but it does not go right, their money disappears and they have nowhere to go. All their bridges are burnt.
Another cause of rough sleeping and homelessness, as has been discussed, is family break-up. Many families break up, and young people and even partners have to find somewhere to live, but there is nothing available for them. They are at a stage in life where they did not expect that to happen.
Sometimes a debt-fuelled life hits crisis point. I have met people who were just about managing, but an accident or something else happened in the family and they suddenly experienced a loss of earnings and everything went downhill very quickly. Domestic violence, drug and alcohol dependency and mental health problems can also be a trigger. People get to the point where they cannot cope: they try to keep everything together, but they cannot manage household bills and so on.
In west Cornwall, we have a problem with a low-wage economy and high living costs. Council tax band C is £138 a month, for example, which is 9% of earnings for a full-time worker on £10 an hour. We are living in an environment where people can become homeless very quickly because of the sheer cost of living.
More homes are needed, I agree, but we must also support people—for example, with the skills they need. We must provide help to support couples and families. We need to reduce drug and alcohol dependency, provide adequate mental health services, drive up earnings and reduce the burden of tax on low earners. The greater challenge is to support people to be independent and to live full lives. If we fail in this, we will never genuinely address the nation’s homelessness problems. I would like to hear from the Minister today more detail about how the Government intend to prevent homelessness and use the money that they are setting aside to support the organisations and charities that can help so many people live the lives that they deserve.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Since I was first elected last year, the largest part of my casework has involved housing and homelessness issues. Let me share two cases with the House.
A 28-year-old contacted me, having been homeless for nine years. A lack of help meant that he fell into a life of crime, substance misuse and rough sleeping. Last Christmas, he was attacked and had to have a metal plate in his jaw. This is not the life he wants to live. He wants to make changes and he does not want to be constantly scared.
A mother of an eight-week-old baby contacted me after she was placed in temporary accommodation, two hours away from her local community. She does not know a single person. The accommodation is filthy. It is unhygienic, so she is worried about breastfeeding her baby. The first few months of a child’s life are crucial. She is scared, lonely and disconnected from her support network in south London. These are just two examples of the hundreds and hundreds of cases that I receive.
A homelessness charity in my constituency, Deptford 999 Club, which sees around 50 people in a single day, tells me that it has seen a rise in the number of young vulnerable adults in its winter night shelters. One 23-year-old who was brought up in care was made homeless after a breakdown with his adoptive family. He was sofa-surfing until he ran out of places to stay. He then began sleeping rough. However, Deptford 999 Club managed to house him locally and he now attends university. Thankfully, this is a success story, but, sadly, it is a rarity. Too many people are having to rely on the good will of such charities. We should be doing more.
Deptford 999 Club has had some of its vital resources decommissioned because of the lack of council funding currently available. Fierce cuts in local authority budgets mean that it is forced into making decisions that have detrimental knock-on effects. It is these knock-on effects that have led to the present situation. Lewisham council’s budget has been cut by £121 million since 2010, and funding will be cut again by a quarter by 2020. These cuts are creating holes in our services and simply cost us more in the long term. The number of households in temporary accommodation has gone up by 91% since 2010, yet the supply of affordable lets has decreased by 40% since 2010. These numbers just don’t add up. How on earth are local authorities expected to help those people?
I have looked through the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which I welcome, but I have some concerns about how it will deliver and how local authorities can fund the duties that they will have. They will be required to carry out an assessment of what led to each applicant’s homelessness, but without additional money. Local authorities will be required to secure accommodation for all eligible households threatened with homelessness—again, no additional money.
Bob Blackman
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case for her area. Does she not understand that under the new burdens doctrine, because those measures are in the Bill, the Government have to provide funding for those services?
Vicky Foxcroft
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If the Government were providing that funding, we would welcome it, but we have seen no evidence of that. They are giving councils additional things to do, but not providing extra funding. They are just ring-fencing funding in different areas.
Local authorities will be required to provide those who find themselves homeless with support for a further 56 days to help them secure accommodation, and that—I am going to say it again—is without additional funding. While these things all sound good in principle, I have to ask again how on earth they will be possible when the Government are not properly resourcing local authorities to deliver them.
As we sit here and debate this issue, there are thousands of people across Britain with no roof over their heads, no place to call home, no shelter and no warmth. Rough sleeping has doubled since 2010. Homelessness is up by a third. Things have to change if we want to reverse this trend. We need more affordable housing. We need to tackle spiralling high-cost rents. We need to ensure that local authorities are given the funding they need to be able to tackle these issues.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
When we discuss homelessness in this place, we should always keep it in mind that there but for the grace of God go I. Like people in the country at large, we all have different circumstances, but I wonder just how little would need to go wrong for us to find ourselves in dire straits—perhaps just a missed rent or mortgage payment, especially if we do not have family or friends to take us in.
Homelessness can come very suddenly and for a number of reasons, but homelessness and rough sleeping should not be allowed to rob individuals of their individuality or their hopes and dreams. We do not want people to fall out of society. Homelessness is about more than simply the availability of houses. That is why the Homelessness Reduction Bill and the Children and Social Work Bill are such good news, and I will return to those later.
There is, though, good work being done already. In my area, Portsmouth City Council has received 1,068 homeless presentations in the last year. Of these, 527 were accepted. In 110 cases, homelessness was prevented, and in 183 cases, advice and assistance alone were sufficient for the applicant. Once it has accepted a family, Portsmouth has a strong record of finding permanent, secure accommodation. Three months in temporary accommodation is an average wait for a family, with some housed much sooner. This is very positive, but there are undoubted pressures.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My hon. Friend speaks movingly of the fact that is at the front of everyone’s minds: there but for the grace of God may go any one of us. Does she agree that the work done by local councils all over the country, such as the one in west Oxfordshire on which I still serve, is absolutely critical? Moreover, does she agree that the fact that 4% more people are being prevented from becoming homeless than last year shows that local councils are in fact tackling homelessness very effectively?
Mrs Drummond
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I was disappointed that Opposition Members did not tell us earlier about what Labour councils are doing around the country, and just blamed the Government every time.
There are undoubted pressures. Difficulties with private landlords, domestic violence and eviction by parents are the most significant factors in Portsmouth. The council is coping well with the demands made of it, but we need to consider how we can prevent these circumstances from developing in the first place.
Sleeping rough is not something that anyone undertakes lightly, and those who have not done it must struggle to understand the blow it must be to one’s self-esteem and identity. Dignity can be hard to maintain. I therefore praise Portsmouth City Council’s work to give rough sleepers support. The homeless day service, run by The Society of St James, is available seven days a week, and provides advice on how to find a home. But more than that, it offers access to free showers and laundry services and a free breakfast.
There are currently 37 rough sleepers in the city, and as the cold weather begins to set in, their predicament is especially acute. The council recognises the problem. Over the winter months, the council can call on 36 beds for rough sleepers on an 8 pm to 8 am basis. During periods of severe cold, the number of beds can increase to 44. This means there is a bed, a bath and a breakfast available to nearly every rough sleeper in our city over the coldest months of the year. I hope we can all agree how important it is that local authorities support these services.
There is much to praise in the charity sector in my city, too. On Christmas day, there will be two places providing lunches for homeless people in the city. Portsmouth Anglican cathedral will cater for 60 people who are homeless, lonely or finding it hard to manage the cost of Christmas lunch. The lunch will be catered by the excellent FoodCycle Pompey. Volunteers will prepare a three-course meal from food that would otherwise have been thrown away by supermarkets. Elsewhere in the city, the Salvation Army will hold its annual Christmas lunch at Southsea Citadel, where some of the people will have been referred by the council’s homeless day service. I thank everybody involved for putting on those lunches. Particularly at Christmas, the burden of social exclusion can be unbearable, and efforts to keep people in touch with others are in the true spirit of the season.
Ending the breakdown of the corporate family is the business of the Children and Social Work Bill. As I have said in this House before, parental duties do not lapse as soon as a child reaches the age of majority; it is optimistic even to think that they end when the child is 21. Anyone here who is a parent of young adults will say as much. I am therefore delighted that the Bill looks to extend the duty of responsibility for those in care to the age of 25, keeping care leavers off the streets. The Homelessness Reduction Bill, on whose Committee I am pleased to serve, does similar work. I support the duty on local authorities to become involved before people become homeless. The Bill will also double the period for which support will be available.
I have not focused on the bricks and mortar, or even the hard cash, of homelessness; those matters have been well ventilated by others. Instead, I have tried to stress that there is so much more to homelessness than simply being unhoused: it is about families and their breakdown; children and their welfare; human dignity and self-respect. I urge those who are overtaken by events to seek help as soon as possible. I reiterate my thanks and admiration for those in Portsmouth, and around the country, who are showing homeless people that they are valuable members of society.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
It is a national disgrace that we have got to a position, as one of the most advanced nations on earth, where so many people are faced with homelessness this winter. Hon. Members across the House will have seen the terrible human consequences of this on an individual scale in their own surgeries, and my constituency is no different. The last official statistics showed that we have just six rough sleepers in my area, but quite apart from the potential underestimating of the problem, that is six too many. We know that in 2015 Kirklees Council dealt with over 400 statutory homelessness cases, and over 2,000 prevention and relief cases. That gives an idea of the scale of the problem even in an area well away from the inner cities.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The figure of six is pertinent, because last year the Department for Communities and Local Government said that there were six rough sleepers in my borough whereas the real figure is about five times that. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of solving the problem of homelessness and rough sleeping is for the Government to know exactly what the scale of the problem is in the first place?
Paula Sherriff
I will talk in a moment about the hidden scale of homelessness. It is absolutely imperative that the Government do more research to find out more about that.
I want to draw particular attention to the plight of homeless women and the unique challenges that they face. There are different causes of homelessness for different groups. In a particularly stark example, Crisis estimates that about four fifths of homeless women in England are fleeing domestic violence. When I first sought statistics to assess the scale of female homelessness, it was chilling to be told by Crisis and St Mungo’s that it was almost impossible to estimate, for the simple reason that so many homeless women deliberately remain invisible because they are in fear of their lives. The Library, however, was able to break down the local authority statistics by household type, showing that the largest pool of homeless applicants were female lone parents, who make up nearly half of those applying to councils. When women in couples with children and women without children are factored in, over two thirds of applicants were female—nearly 50,000 women in one year. Most of those were parents, so there is a clear relation to the equally stark fact that 120,000 children will be homeless this Christmas, according to Shelter. That is a figure that all of us in this House should feel ashamed of.
Preventing the problem is vital, of course, but I also want to talk about the reality of life for those women who, for whatever reason, find themselves homeless. The Homeless Period is a new campaign to highlight the problems faced by homeless women in acquiring sanitary products. It should go without saying that most women take these for granted as a fact of life, but whereas homeless shelters have an allowance from the Government to provide items such as condoms, they have no such allowance to buy female sanitary products. I have been horrified by the reports coming out of the campaign of the conditions in which homeless women are forced to live: reports of women faced with the choice between buying food and buying tampons, or forced to decide which is less dignified—stealing sanitary products or doing without. Put simply, it is enough of an affront to human dignity for a person to be homeless in the first place, but that is multiplied by the fear—for women who are forced to sleep rough, a very real fear—of their own natural bodily functions. A lack of access to basic hygiene also poses health risks that women can ill afford when they are already in one of the most vulnerable positions imaginable.
I recently met again with Laura Coryton, who campaigned so effectively on the tampon tax. She, The Homeless Period campaign and others are calling for donations of sanitary products to food banks and homeless shelters, so that no woman in such desperate circumstances is forced to suffer the indignities I have just described. I wish to place on record my thanks to Laura and all those campaigning on this vital issue for the work they are doing to improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable women in our society.
I am also pleased to tell the House that just this week I have worked with Boots to set up a pilot scheme through which they will donate sanitary products to food banks, and also encourage donations from their customers in store. We will start in my constituency—of course—this winter, and if that is a success, I hope it can be replicated up and down the country.
But it is not enough to rely on charity alone. The Government need to intervene sooner rather than later. It is not enough for them to choose between tackling either symptom or cause.
When I started campaigning in this House on the tampon tax, some hon. Members recoiled, while others did not even want to talk about periods or tampons, as if the words themselves were obscene. I do not regret providing such a culture shock to this place—quite the opposite—but that reaction exemplifies why the issue of homeless women’s access to sanitary care is so widespread and terribly underestimated. As The Homeless Period campaign says,
“it doesn’t bear thinking about—and that’s the problem.”
I hope that hon. Members from all parties, especially the Minister, will bear thinking about it today, and that we will not only acknowledge the problem but start to find solutions.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). She is doing fantastic work in the area of tampons and provision for the homeless.
As a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee, I have seen for myself the challenges of homelessness. Nobody should have to live on the streets. Not only do too many do so, but many more are only one or two missed paycheques from joining them, and that is a real point in our society: there is so little buffer. So few people have savings in place, and so many of us are captured by debt. People find themselves in rental arrears with county court judgments and other factors that stop them getting further tenancy agreements. That blights the lives of thousands of people across this country.
My hon. Friend the Minister made a very brave speech, in which he said that there were failings, and that the figure for rough sleeping is not good enough in this country, in this economy at this time. That was very brave, in the face of a poised but also very political speech by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). I congratulate the Minister. His point stands, but I genuinely believe that there is a step change going on right now. Many of the statistics that have been mentioned in this debate—I will not rehash them—show that there is this step change. We need to work together, and, as the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, we need interconnectivity. People need to stop working in silos and we need to think from start to finish.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that local authorities work together with the Local Government Association to tackle the pernicious practice—born of desperation—of local authorities shuttling their homeless people round the country to other local authorities, sometimes in the hands of rapacious private landlords who use housing benefit regulations loopholes to get more money? That sometimes means serving section 21 notices on existing tenants.
Julian Knight
That is a good point. I know for a fact that that occurs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he has seen the dramatic effects of moving people in that way.
The clearest example of the Government’s determination to tackle rough sleeping is the decision to support the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). It was drawn up by colleagues on the CLG Committee and based on our independent research and findings. The Bill would mandate councils to provide 56 days of support to homeless individuals, and to make sure that other services refer people who are at risk of homelessness to the council’s housing team. Most importantly, the Bill would require local authorities to help at-risk individuals to find accommodation before they end up on the streets—not no second night sleeping out, but no first night sleeping out. Such early intervention is crucial to tackling these problems before the costs, both financial and human, start to mount.
Although my patch, Solihull, aims to provide a high-quality response to the needs of those who are already on the streets, prevention has become the central focus of the borough’s homelessness strategy in recent times. The council and partners co-operate to identify and assist vulnerable households, members of which are in immediate danger of becoming homeless. I am pleased to report that our council has passed the first stage in achieving the gold standard for homelessness and housing advice services, and it has pledged not to rest until it reaches that goal and can guarantee Solihull residents the support services that they deserve and increasingly need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) has mentioned, there is a lot of hidden homelessness—sofa-surfing, and so on—even in seemingly well-to-do areas.
Unfortunately, the high standard of care for which Solihull aims is not universal. Earlier this month, many of my constituents and I were shocked to hear of a young man freezing to death in neighbouring Birmingham, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I hope and believe that the Homelessness Reduction Bill will help to focus minds on the human costs of homelessness and guide local authorities towards effective policies that are preventive where possible, and remedial where necessary.
Enacting the Homelessness Reduction Bill would be a great step towards tackling homelessness in the best way: by preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place. That it was drawn up, unusually, by a Select Committee demonstrates the depth of concern inside and outside the House. The Government, Opposition parties and the country need to rise to that challenge together, and the Government’s support for the Bill is proof that they share that ambition.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am speaking in this debate because I am angry. I am angry because in one of the richest countries in the world, the number of people sleeping rough on our streets is going up; I am angry because the number of families placed in temporary accommodation is increasing; and I am angry because the cuts to housing benefit mean that more and more of my constituents are unable to cover their rent, so they find themselves out on the streets with their belongings.
I am angry, but I am also sad. I am sad because if someone is on the minimum wage in an area such as mine and they do not have a council or housing association property, their chances of finding somewhere decent and affordable to live are close to zero. I am also sad that children often pay the highest price. A family may be placed in a bed and breakfast miles away from their children’s school, because the local authority cannot source local properties at an affordable rent.
When I became an MP six years ago, it was uncommon for anyone to visit my advice surgery because they were a rough sleeper. It was uncommon, but not unknown: there were men who would ride night buses trying to keep warm, and some would find shelter in disused garages or parks. Now, it is commonplace. At one advice surgery in October, I saw four people in the space of as many hours, all of whom were set to sleep outside that evening. They could have been the people my constituents see on a daily basis on a mattress underneath the arches next to Lewisham station, in sleeping bags in Ladywell Fields or huddled and cold on wet cardboard outside the BP garage on Lee High Road. It is all too easy to walk by and to think that it is someone else’s problem. It is not, though; it is our problem, and as a country we need to fix it.
Rob Marris
As well as being angry, does my hon. Friend share my dismay? There is a consensus in the House about the need to do something about homelessness, but homelessness is not a problem that drops out of the sky. Homelessness and the explosion in the number of people using food banks are consequences of Government policy in the last six years.
Heidi Alexander
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, the previous Government cut the national affordable house building programme by 63% in 2011 and they have an awful lot to answer for.
I want to share with colleagues one story that underlines the need for change. At my advice surgery in Downham a few weeks ago, I met a man called Terry. Terry is not his real name, but for reasons that will become obvious, he does not want his real name to be known. Terry, who is in his 60s, works with young men at risk of getting into trouble with the law. He has lived alone for the past few years, having gone through a divorce. Terry used to pay £650 a month for a one-bedroom flat—cheap by Lewisham standards—but then the rent doubled overnight. He could not afford it, and he had to move out. Terry now sleeps in a van. He has not told his children because he is too embarrassed, and he cannot get help from the council because he is not deemed to be in priority need. When I hear Conservative politicians say, “If you can’t afford to live in London, you should move out”, I wonder whether they mean people like Terry—people who have not done anything wrong, and have done quite a lot right.
Julian Knight
Will the hon. Lady name the Conservative politician involved? Was it a councillor or a Member of Parliament? I am just wondering who that quote comes from.
Heidi Alexander
Anyone listening to the rhetoric during the last Parliament will be under no illusions about what certain members of the former Government have said.
I say this to the Government on behalf of my constituents: wake up! They should wake up and invest in social housing. They should wake up and build homes that people can afford to live in. They should wake up and stop pumping money into the bank accounts of private landlords and build social housing instead.
Heidi Alexander
I am afraid I will not give way, because I have already had my injury time.
I have previously spoken in the Chamber about the disparity that can exist between the housing benefit paid out on private rented property and that on social housing. If we take two families in receipt of full housing benefit in my constituency, with one in a two-bedroom private rented flat and one in a two-bedroom council flat, the annual benefit paid on the private rented property will be almost £9,000 more than that paid on the council flat. We cannot afford to go on like this. We all know—the Chancellor confirmed as much a few weeks back—that the public finances are likely to be shot to pieces as a result of Brexit. I fear for my constituents in these circumstances, and that makes it all the more important that the Government make the right choices. They should fund local authorities adequately, shift the public subsidy from benefits to bricks and mortar, and build social housing. Until we do that, any attempts to tackle homelessness will always be destined to fail.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made such a powerful case on behalf of her area. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The causes of homelessness are many and varied. It is all too easy for us to concentrate on one particular issue. I apologise for not being present for the Labour Front-Bench spokesman’s speech—I meant no disrespect; I was in a Committee meeting elsewhere in the Palace, and the timing of this debate meant that I was held up—but the reality is that homelessness peaked under the previous Labour Government at over 300,000 applications in 2003-04. By 2010, because of action taken by the Labour Government, it had dropped dramatically, and it has been rising steadily ever since. It is quite clear that we must address that.
I am very thankful for all the comments about my Homelessness Reduction Bill. I thank everyone who spoke on Second Reading, and those who are serving on the Public Bill Committee as we take it through the House. I look forward to its returning to this place early in 2017, going to the House of Lords and eventually becoming law.
That is only one part of the jigsaw puzzle in solving homelessness. I am clear that we have to deal with the problem of supply above all else, but we need to do other things as well. If we do not build proper affordable housing, quite clearly we will never solve this problem.
Dr Poulter
I commend my hon. Friend for his Bill. On the point he has just made, does he agree that a zeal for private home ownership at all costs is at the very root of this problem? We must deal with that if we are to tackle it in the longer term. We need more affordable homes and a genuine housing mix. That is the only way we will help people to avoid homelessness and find a sustainable solution.
Bob Blackman
Clearly we have the problem that Governments of all persuasions, as the Minister rightly said, have failed to build enough housing for almost 40 years. The reality is that the private sector alone will never build enough housing. We have had the announcement of the settlement for London, with £3.15 billion to build 90,000 affordable homes across London over the next three years. That is a great settlement. It is now incumbent on everyone to get on with building those properties. Public land is available on which they can be built, and it can.
We have to divide homelessness into two categories. There are rough sleepers—people who are on the street and who are at severe risk. Their health is bad and they are likely to be attacked. Many of them are on the streets for the first time and are extremely vulnerable. As I said in an intervention, it is likely that they will die as a result of sleeping rough. That is an absolute scandal in this day and age. They cost the health service huge amounts of money. They are likely to be addicted to drugs, alcohol or tobacco. We cannot blame them for that, because they are in a spiral of despair. We have to come together as a House to make sure that no one gets to the stage of sleeping rough.
There is also the problem of the hidden homeless—the sofa surfers. These are people who stay with family and friends until they exhaust all their family and friends and end up on the streets. Unless we address that issue, we will not solve the problem.
Last night, I went out with a brilliant team from St Mungo’s to identify people on the streets of the city of London who are sleeping rough. It is clear that those individuals have complex needs. It is not a magic solution to say, “Give them somewhere to live or sleep and that is the end of the problem.” They need counselling and support. They need a whole package of measures to help them get back on their feet and live what we would all call a normal life. Unfortunately, providing accommodation is not sufficient. That is an important point.
Equally, it is clear that one problem in society now is that private sector landlords are reluctant to rent homes to people who are homeless. I therefore ask the Government to consider a national deposit scheme, so that people who are in need of housing in the private sector can be provided with a deposit at a national level, rather than relying on local authorities to identify a deposit for them. That would secure private rented accommodation for people who are not in priority need. That would make a huge difference to the number of people who are declared homeless but are not assisted. We know that one of the challenges for people who are in difficulty is finding the deposit to buy a house or for private rented housing. That is something that the Government should consider.
I look forward to the publication of the White Paper on the development of new homes and the housing strategy. We all have to be clear that housing is a market. If we start interfering in a market, there are unintended consequences. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have considered all those aspects and, rather than tinkering with some of the measures, will get on with a national house building programme that we can all be proud of and with measures that will alleviate the homelessness crisis. I look forward to the other announcements that will no doubt follow. Measures to reduce rough sleeping are paramount. If we do not address that problem quickly, we will lose too many people too early.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I applaud my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for their efforts in securing this important and timely debate.
I have witnessed homelessness at first hand, volunteering with Crisis at Christmas to hand out hundreds of turkey dinners to homeless people. I saw homelessness for what it is: not a problem confined to addicts or one that results only from mental health issues, but something that could happen to us all. We are all just three steps away from homelessness: one, you lose your job; two, you lose your partner; three, you lose your house. It could happen to anyone.
After years of what has been described as unprecedented decline, homelessness is now back on the rise. Rough sleeping has doubled, families living in emergency bed-and-breakfast and hostel rooms are up by 18% in only one year, homeless households have increased by 44%, and 120,000 children will be homeless this Christmas. We see it every day on our way in and out of work, with people sleeping in the entrances to Parliament on cardboard boxes and in sleeping bags.
Homelessness is not just confined to city centres. My constituency of Batley and Spen is not somewhere one would usually associate with homelessness; with not one single urban centre, we are a smattering of Yorkshire towns and villages. Yet, as I have said in this House before, when I was six my family fell behind on the mortgage repayments and we had to hand the keys of our home back to the building society. The council stepped in and found us a new home. But with 14,000 people on the Kirklees Council housing waiting list, if that happened to us now, I am not sure what would become of my family. Perhaps we too would have to rely on the kindness of strangers, in an emergency bed and breakfast or even on the streets.
We know that the situation is getting worse, not better. The manager of the Batley drop-in centre at the Central Methodist church told me just yesterday that his centre has seen a 15% year-on-year increase in people coming through the door. What stood out from our conversation is that not all those using the centre are what we would normally deem homeless. They are not all sleeping on the streets; most are sofa-surfing until the good will runs out and they have to move on to other friends. His explanation for the increase is threefold: at the church, for two days in the week, they do not have to pay for heating, they get a hot meal and a food parcel to take away, and—let us not forget this—they also get companionship, which must be thin on the ground when circumstances force someone to keep moving on.
As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, one third of households that become homeless do so when their private rented tenancy ends. We need to adapt to the needs of the growing number of families who rent. Longer-term, secure tenancies with affordable rent increases are essential, because homelessness is not always caused by the loss of a home, but is often due to an inability to find a new one. Crisis tells us that deposits average nearly £1,200, with agency fees to pay on top, so it is easy to see how a family ends up in financial difficulties. I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s call for a rent deposit guarantee system for homeless people and those faced with homelessness.
The Government’s support for the hon. Gentleman’s Homelessness Reduction Bill is welcome—as long as it is fully funded—but it will not address the lack of support for private renters or the chronic lack of investment in affordable homes. I welcome the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) to eradicate rough sleeping in the first term of a Labour Government. I know he has sent his proposals to the Prime Minister, so I hope that Government Members can give assurances that those proposals will be considered seriously.
Every single expert, organisation and Member of this House knows that the only long-term solution to homelessness is to build genuinely affordable homes for families to live in, because a home they can afford is not just bricks and mortar, but stability and security. Let us not find ourselves back in this place this time next year debating these same issues. Those 120,000 children deserve better, and we cannot let them down.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
What does homelessness actually entail? In the words of Rachel Moran in her excellent book, “Paid For”,
“The word ‘homeless’ seems to present the condition as a single lack, but homelessness is actually many individual deficiencies combined. The worst of them are emotional; but to mention the physical challenges first: the single worst bodily aspect of homelessness is exhaustion. It is caused by several factors, including sleep-deprivation, hunger and a constant need to remain on the move.”
This explanation of homelessness is insightful, because it shows us just how inadequate the word “homeless” is. To live without a fridge, cooker, television, shower, sofa or bed is a struggle that homeless people contend with daily. It might start with sleeping on a friend’s sofa, then another friend’s; but then a week-long stay becomes a day here, a day there, until the night comes when there is no sofa available, and instead a doorway is used, probably nearby at first, but then the person drifts; and one day they have to acknowledge that they are homeless. It does not start that way. We all see homeless people, but we never suspect that we will become one. How damaging to a person’s self-esteem and mental health is that moment when homelessness becomes an acknowledged reality? How does anyone find their way back?
In Scotland, the number of homelessness applications is decreasing, from a peak of over 60,000 in 2005-06 to 34,600 in 2015-16. Some 294 of these applications were made in my constituency, and that is 294 too many. We have made progress, but Shelter Scotland has indicated that there has been no underlying change in the drivers of homelessness. Almost half of those who have made homelessness applications in Scotland are single males, and 16% are single females with a child. Shamefully, many of those people are ex-service personnel—people who have made the highest commitment to serve their country but have not received the support they deserve.
Although homelessness is primarily tackled by the UK and devolved Governments, local authorities also play an important role. Scottish local authorities have been hindered by policies born in this place, such as the right to buy, which was not reinforced by a need to build. According to Scottish Government statistics, we have lost over 450,000 homes from the social rented sector as a result of the right to buy, and thousands of the homes that remain are of dubious quality. It is estimated that about one in 10 households in Scotland are affected by dampness or condensation. Thankfully, the Scottish Government have ended the right to buy, and more than 16,000 new homes have been built in the last year—a rate higher than the UK average.
I hope to see this issue prioritised as a matter of public policy across the UK, particularly as homelessness is increasingly being stigmatised. Recently, The Huffington Post reported that Crisis spoke to 458 people who were sleeping rough or had slept rough in the last year and said they were facing “ever-more hostile streets”. Councils, developers, businesses and other organisations are deploying “defensive architecture”, including iron and concrete studs placed in flat areas to prevent homeless people from finding a place to sleep. It makes me wonder what the threat is and why we need to defend ourselves from it. A compassionate society should not be deploying medieval-style defences against vulnerable people who need assistance. So-called defensive architecture is dehumanising and sends a clear message: “go away, disappear, you’re not wanted.”
Homelessness is an issue of priorities. Instead of encouraging developers to build luxury apartments, some of which are bought up as investments and never lived in, we should be building social housing. Our welfare system must also be tailored in a compassionate way that enables people to have a platform on which to build their own lives. Our current system does not provide that support. A universal basic income could be a solution to address social ills and protect the most vulnerable from becoming homeless. At the very least we should be exploring that possibility, instead of tinkering around the edges of a system that is in need of a more fundamental reform. I will concede, however, that homelessness is a complex issue, and one that cannot be eliminated just by burying it with money and legislation. Homelessness is not only an issue of housing; it is also the product of inequality, poverty, domestic abuse, family breakdown and addiction. It can happen to anyone from any background.
In conclusion, we should never allow ourselves to accept homelessness as an inevitable result of a modern society. It is not inevitable and it does not need to happen. Complacency on the part of the UK Government will result in a failure to tackle this issue. Rising living costs, stagnating wages and the UK’s mismanaged welfare system are putting increased pressure on homelessness services. My fear is that the progress made at Holyrood is being undermined by welfare decisions taken at Westminster. Ultimately, people sleeping rough tonight do not care whether local authorities, devolved Administrations or the UK Government have the power to help them; they just need support. It is up to all elected Members across the UK to ensure they receive that support.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I am very proud of the Welsh Government’s record on tackling homelessness. The Welsh Government have funded affordable homes to rent as well as buy and have pledged to protect their Supporting People budget for homeless services. Local authorities in Wales are not forced to sell vacant homes to the highest bidder in order to credit funds to the Exchequer. Since 2011, Welsh local authorities have suspended the right to buy scheme in areas experiencing high demand for housing in order to preserve the stock of affordable homes.
My Labour-led council in the city and county of Swansea has recently broken ground on a pilot scheme to build 18 Passivhaus standard energy-efficient homes. This ambitious plan is just the first stage and could lead to thousands of new homes across Swansea. These homes have the potential to offer annual fuel bills of just £70—yes, annual fuel bills. The first homes will be occupied this coming March. Swansea is a forward-thinking, ambitious local authority preparing for the future and offering solutions not just to homelessness but to fuel poverty.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
On my hon. Friend’s point about the work of Swansea Council, lots of Welsh local authorities are now moving to build more council housing because of the support from the Welsh Government for tackling homelessness and being able to build social housing. Does she agree that the Welsh Government and local government in particular are showing the way in tackling homelessness and affordable housing?
Carolyn Harris
I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend and I will come to that in a moment.
Right across Wales, the intention is to reduce homelessness by utilising both the private and social housing sectors. The commitment from the Welsh Government has been to fund proactive schemes to prevent homelessness. My local authority is a pioneer in this area. Between 2015 and 2016, more than 7,000 households were threatened with impending homelessness, but the Welsh Government were able to prevent 65% of them from becoming homeless. That proves that local authorities such as mine, and others right across Wales, are working with the Welsh Government to understand and tackle the problem. Maybe it is time the Westminster Government took a leaf out of the Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities’ “How to Tackle Homelessness” book.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Chris Elmore. [Interruption.]
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was taken by surprise a bit. There is nothing like having two Welsh Members following each other, is there?
The motion before us notes that 120,000 children will be homeless this Christmas. That is a fact that should alarm every Member of the House and shame the Government for their inaction. The levels of homelessness across the UK show the worst consequences of ignoring the most vulnerable in society. There can be no excuse for the fact that the number of people sleeping rough doubled between 2010 and 2015. While this Government are refusing to acknowledge rising homelessness, I am glad to see a different approach being taken by the Welsh Government. In contrast to the Government in Westminster, the First Minister and his Government have shown time and again that they are not afraid to tackle the problem head on.
Unlike the UK Government, the Welsh Government have continued to fund affordable homes to rent as well as buy, allowed councils to suspend the right to buy in areas of high housing pressure and have not forced local authorities to sell vacant homes to the highest bidder. On top of that, the Welsh Government have introduced a housing Act designed to reduce homelessness through a stronger focus on prevention and, despite significant budget pressures, provided the necessary funding and resources.
Bob Blackman
On that point, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the total number of people presenting themselves as homeless for the whole of Wales is less than the figure for the single London borough of Lambeth?
Chris Elmore
I acknowledge that and understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. What I am trying to stress is that there are different and more positive approaches to tackling homelessness, and the Welsh Government are leading the way on that.
I am incredibly proud of the action taken by the Welsh Labour Government to tackle homelessness, but equally I am incredibly proud of the work of the last Labour Government in this House and their efforts. When Labour is in government, be it in Wales or the UK as a whole, homelessness falls. Under the two previous Labour Prime Ministers, statutory homelessness fell by almost two thirds, and the number of people sleeping rough fell by three quarters. In Wales, in the first year of the Welsh Government’s Housing Act, 65% of families assessed as threatened with homelessness were successfully prevented from becoming homeless, as the shadow Secretary of State for Housing and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned.
This House needs a cross-party approach to tackle the scourge of homelessness across the UK. Labour Governments have repeatedly shown that it is possible to take action, and I hope this Government will today take note and work to help find everybody a home.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I met a former constituent today at a community event in my constituency. I first met her two years ago when she was being evicted, with her young children, from her private sector home while she was receiving treatment for cancer. She was moved out of my constituency into temporary accommodation—and two years later, she is still there. She said to me, “I saw something about homelessness on the news this morning. Is that about people like me? Are they going to do something?” I would like to be able to say to her at the end of this debate, “Yes, the Government have made a commitment to sort out homelessness.”
Late last night, I checked my emails and found a message from a constituent whom I have been supporting over a number of issues in the past few months. He wrote that he had come home to find that his private landlord had changed the locks, leaving him, his wife and two very young children, who were running a fever, out on the streets with nowhere to go.
The other week, I saw a constituent in my surgery who was crying as she told me how hard it is to be living in temporary accommodation. She said, “It’s living out of boxes and bags. All I want is to make a home for my kids, but I can’t while we are living out of boxes and bags.” These stories are devastating, but they are absolutely typical of the experiences of thousands and thousands of people who are not sleeping rough, but who nevertheless do not have the security of a permanent home. There are 1,800 families, including 5,000 children in temporary accommodation in Lambeth—families who are facing Christmas without the essential security and comfort of a home. That is a disgrace.
I am pleased to support the Homelessness Reduction Bill and I have been working with colleagues on its detail. It responds directly to evidence we heard in the Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into homelessness that the statutory framework governing support for homeless people is not fit for purpose and is not working because it allows too many people to go unsupported. Absolutely critical to the success of this Bill is the Government’s commitment to resource it and the level of the resource that they provide. We are almost at the end of the Committee stage of the Bill, but we still do not know how or at what level the Government will resource councils to implement the new duties and burdens that the Bill can introduce. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity in his summing up speech to give some confirmation.
The Homelessness Reduction Bill is an important and necessary reform, but it is important for the Government to recognise that it addresses only one part of the problem. Supply is fundamental, but so is the nature of that supply. Evidence heard by the Communities and Local Government Committee in our inquiry into capacity in the homebuilding industry points to key skills shortages in the construction sector, but also to a private sector that is maxed out in the number of homes that it can deliver.
Our Committee returned this morning from a visit to Berlin, where we learned about the significant public sector resource—land, low-cost loans and direct public subsidy—that goes into delivering high levels of social housing at genuinely affordable rates. We have delivered the number of homes needed to keep pace with demand in the UK only in the post-war period when the public sector was directly delivering many thousands of homes.
I await the housing White Paper with anticipation, and I hope to see in it the policies we need to make a huge shift in the rate of homebuilding in this country. In the meantime, we are left with the private rented sector. I sat through weeks of debate last year on the Housing and Planning Act 2016—devastating legislation that did nothing about the single biggest cause of homelessness. While I support the banning of letting agents’ fees to tenants, that is only one issue in a sector urgently in need of reform. We need better security of tenure, and particularly in London we need to be able to limit the rate of rent increases that can be charged within the terms of a tenancy.
The Government must not be complacent in thinking that support for the Homelessness Reduction Bill means that they can tick the box for having solved homelessness. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out today what the Government will do to fund genuinely affordable homes, to increase the rate of homebuilding and to reform the private rented sector, so that we can end the scandal of homelessness.
I end by paying tribute to the organisations in my constituency and across the country that will support homeless people this Christmas, helping homeless families through food banks or providing direct shelter and food to those in need, and to the many volunteers who help to make those operations happen. They are a reminder that we are a compassionate nation. We recognise homelessness as a scandal that shocks and horrifies us, and communities across the country want the Government to sort it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want to talk about the issues facing young people today and then about complex cases of homelessness and the related problems.
At Prime Minister’s questions on 23 November I mentioned Aberdeen Cyrenians, a charity in my constituency. In fact, I think it may be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), but it is in my city anyway.
Kirsty Blackman
Our city; I am sorry. I mentioned that charity and asked the Prime Minister about how austerity is increasing homelessness. The Prime Minister’s answer included the phrase “living within our means”, which is unfortunate phrasing. Homeless people do not have any means to live within. They do not have a house or other things. Today’s debate has been much more considered and measured and a lot less political than that exchange at PMQs.
I have heard young people today—as in people under about 35 or 40—being described as the precariat. They have precarious jobs. The gig economy is increasing and they do not have the long-term jobs that people used to have. They are subsisting on zero-hours contracts and do not have the same level of security as previous generations, who could walk into a job and have it for life. They do not have security in housing. They live incredibly expensively in the private rented sector, where not enough safeguards are in place to ensure security of tenure. As has been mentioned, people can come home and find that their locks have been changed, and their private sector landlord feels that that is the way forward. A huge number of landlords are not like that, but enough are to make it a problem.
Young people today are in precarious situations, and the risk of homelessness is real and one that we have not seen in recent generations. A study published in September found that 40% of families have less than £100 in savings. Much has been said today about so many of us being just a step away from homelessness, but that bears repeating—40% of families have less than £100 in savings. People do not have the extra cash in their pockets to deal with an unexpected change in situation, so homelessness is perhaps a bigger risk than it has been previously.
With austerity, benefits sanctions and the changes to the benefits system, the people with the most complex, chaotic lives are being disadvantaged the most. The Government cannot easily get them back into work, and they represent a figure that a few weeks of jobcentre intervention will not change. They need months of intervention—some may need years—due to their complex problems, including mental health issues, homelessness and being unable to hold down a job in recent years. They require huge amounts of intervention before they will be able to get back to being tax-paying, working members of society. It is quite easy, if the Government say they are not going to provide intensive support for those people, for them to fall between the cracks. Allowing that to happen in those complex cases is one of the worst things that this Government have done, and that causes a real issue of homelessness.
A huge number of other things can lead to homelessness. Domestic violence has been talked about a lot, and we have a debate on it on Friday. It can lead to women or men—in the main it is women—fleeing and finding themselves homeless or in an insecure tenancy. That is a real problem that they have to deal with at a time when they are going through a huge number of other problems too. Again, that problem is sometimes being left alone because it is too difficult to tackle and it is not an easy statistic to change—the Government cannot easily get people back into work and back into a secure place.
As someone who was elected to a local authority in 2007, I am a passionate advocate against the right to buy. I saw the damage it caused to our communities and the number of people who do not have a permanent roof over their head as a result of it, and the Government need to change their plans on it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
We have had a well-informed debate. I appreciate the contributions from Members on both sides of the House and respect their passion and sincerity, but nothing that has been said has distracted from, let alone contradicted, the three stark statistics in the motion, which indict this Government’s record on homelessness. Those are a 44% increase in statutory homelessness since 2010—there is an absolute duty to the most vulnerable and those in the most need—a doubling in street homelessness, which is the most obvious and insistent evidence of our failure as a society to provide all our citizens with basic necessities of life, and 120,000 children being homeless this Christmas.
We have heard 17 Back-Bench speeches in this short debate, which shows the degree of interest in this subject. We have heard from the hon. Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh), my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). We have heard from every part of the British Isles. I apologise if I do not have the time to comment on each of those speeches, as they all had much to recommend them.
I will not do the speeches justice by summarising themes, but I have to say that what I heard in a number of speeches by Conservative Members—I exempt the hon. Member for Harrow East from this—was real distress at individual cases in surgeries and in the streets, but no real appreciation of the link between those cases and their own Government’s policy. I credit the hon. Gentleman, as he acknowledged the scale of the problem and how it has risen.
A number of my colleagues made the point about where the blame lies, and although I am being invidious by singling anyone out, I do single out my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East, for Westminster North and for Birmingham, Erdington, whose experience over many years and indeed decades in areas of very high housing stress enabled them to put the blame where it lies: with Government policy, with local government cuts and with the persistent failure to build social housing and relieve the pressure.
The Government’s amendment does them no credit. It is a nit-picker’s attempt to sidestep the central causes of the homelessness crisis, which this Government and their coalition predecessor have caused. What is beyond dispute is that the measures the Government rely on in their defence are not working. If they were, we would not have seen a year-on-year worsening in the plight of homeless persons. No one says it will be easy to resolve issues that are now chronic and endemic across the UK, particularly in London and other areas with high demand and a poor supply of affordable homes. The Minister could at least begin to tackle the worst aspects of homelessness by signing up today to the proposals to tackle rough sleeping set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and tackling street homelessness through an extension of the clearing house scheme, which both Labour and Tory Governments have supported in the past. There is nothing inevitable about homelessness. The record of the last Labour Government showed that with a two-thirds drop in statutory homelessness in the 10 years to 2010 and a three-quarters drop in rough sleeping in the same period.
I noticed how, in opening the debate, the Minister for Housing and Planning tried to minimise Labour’s achievements and talk up his own party’s achievements. I suppose that that is his job, but independent audit has a different view. I hope that he and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who will be replying to the debate, have read the “Green Book”, which was published this month by Shelter to mark its 50th anniversary and the 50th anniversary of “Cathy Come Home”. It says:
“The numbers of households living in temporary accommodation and the numbers of people found sleeping rough on a given night have risen for the last five years. The number of households coming to their council and being found to be homeless and in priority need is over a quarter higher than five years ago. The number of households accepted as homeless started to rise in 2010. Even more striking is that this followed a period of six years when the level of homelessness appeared to drop sharply. The sharp turn that the homelessness statistics made after 2009 is a striking trend”.
Callum McCaig
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that developer contributions are an important way of attracting additional funds for local authorities to build affordable housing to help tackle the problem of homelessness? Does he share my disappointment that my local council has forgone £30 million in developer contributions for student accommodation that could have helped to alleviate homelessness in Aberdeen?
Andy Slaughter
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not an expert in planning gain in his own local authority area. There are a number of ways of funding affordable homes, and I will come on to one or two of them in a moment. He is right to identify that matter as being the root cause of the problem.
I turn to the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which we were considering in Committee this morning and which the Government pray in aid in their amendment. A number of Members who are on the Bill Committee have mentioned it. That Bill is the brain child of Crisis and is supported by St Mungo’s Broadway, Shelter and the consensus of opinion across the housing sector. Those excellent organisations have been on the frontline against homelessness for decades. Like many Members, I have been proud to work with them in my constituency.
More importantly for the Bill’s chances of making it to the statute book, it has the support of all parties and of the Government, and has been ably promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East. It is no exaggeration to say that it will make a sea change in homelessness law, both through the emphasis it places on prevention and through the changes that it imposes on local authorities to assist non-priority groups, particularly single people, in finding accommodation.
In promoting the Bill, Crisis is also making the statement that it can no longer be expected to pick up the pieces of the failure of much of the apparatus designed to help the homeless. I welcome the Bill both for the signal that it sends and for the detailed requirements that it places on the Government to tackle this growing crisis, but—this “but” has dominated our discussions on the Bill—legislation alone will not solve the problem. Indeed, it may, in the first instance, make it worse. Let me give three reasons why I say that.
First, local authorities, especially those in metropolitan areas, are struggling to deal with their responsibility to those who are in priority need. Members who have seen the Mayor of London’s briefing—I welcome the Mayor’s personal commitment to tackling London’s housing crisis—will know that the number of households in bed and breakfasts in London has risen by 234% since 2010. The figure is 157% elsewhere. The telling statistic for London Members is this: in 2010, 13% of families were placed outside their local authority area, but that has now almost tripled to 35%. Every one of those families is a tragic story of people displaced from their communities, their schools, their jobs and their family support. If we are not careful, one consequence of putting additional burdens on local authorities for the non-priority homeless when they cannot at the moment cope with the priority homeless is that the latter will suffer.
Secondly, there is a general pressure on local authority budgets, with cuts of 40% to 50% —by far and away the largest in any part of the public sector. Those pressures extend everywhere, and I imagine that tomorrow we will hear quite a lot about that and about social care. Because of those pressures across the board, it is absolutely vital that the measures in the Homelessness Reduction Bill are fully funded. I hear what the Government have said about that, but we are still waiting. The Under-Secretary has promised that we will have details of the funding before the Committee reports. It is important that that pledge is honoured and is not just a paper promise. We must clearly see that the measure will be fully funded, otherwise it simply will not work and local authorities will again carry the can for central Government’s mistakes.
The third and most important issue is the effect of the Government’s general policies on housing and homelessness. In the area of housing finance, the benefit cap has just been further reduced, which has had an attritional effect on my authority and many others. The freeze on local housing allowance, the introduction of the bedroom tax and 45% cuts in the Supporting People budget in the last Parliament are unprecedented cuts, and the net effect is to destabilise the people who are most vulnerable and most at risk of homelessness.
In the private rented sector, rent increases and the ability for private landlords to charge higher rents to make more profit mean that evictions are at a high. Some 40% in London—30% nationally—of people presenting to local authorities cite the serving of a section 21 notice, or the no-fault eviction process. We have heard it argued that as a result we need the Bill to put more responsibility on local authorities, but what about the responsibility of the Government to legislate for longer tenancies and, as we would do, to legislate for rent control to combat rent rises during a tenancy? That would have a much more salutary effect in preventing homelessness.
Andy Slaughter
If the Minister does not mind, I will not give way, as I have only two minutes left, and I do not want to take time away from his colleague the Under-Secretary.
Housing supply is the key issue. We have the lowest social housing build on record. We still face the prospect of the sale of high-value council homes, and a reduction in rent has prevented councils from building new social homes. We have 140,000 fewer council homes than in 2010. Unless that problem is tackled we will never tackle the problem of homelessness.
That is the story of the Homelessness Reduction Bill, but it is also the story of this Government and their attitude not just to homelessness but to the housing crisis generally. They talk about solutions, but their policies have made matters worse. We have been promised cash for the implementation of the Bill and we have been promised wider initiatives in the delayed White Paper, but time is running out for the Government to act. Empty words and empty Bills will not stop children being homeless at Christmas or vulnerable people sleeping on the streets. Tomorrow, the new figures on statutory homelessness will be published, but they are unlikely to bring any comfort to the homeless or to the Government. This is a crisis that the Government have neglected, and have even aggravated with the range of policies that they have pursued. If they are sincere about tackling the problems of homelessness, words will no longer suffice—only action will.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I thank the Opposition for bringing this important debate to the House. It has given Members across the House an opportunity to discuss a critical issue, and it gives me the opportunity to outline the actions that this Government are taking to meet the challenge.
This has been a good debate. Time does now allow me to do justice to all the contributions, which were excellent, but I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points as I can within the time available. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning stated at the outset, the Government are committed to tackling homelessness. I reiterate that that is a priority for me and for the Government. No one should find themselves without a roof over their head. As my hon. Friend outlined earlier, we are supporting the largest house building programme of any Government since the 1980s, but as many hon. Members have said, homelessness is not just a housing issue. Tackling it requires a collective response at both national and local levels and an unrelenting focus on prevention.
There are many good examples of early intervention around the country. We want to drive good practice to help all areas learn from the experiences and take on the good practice of the councils that are doing things the right way. To kick-start this, we have launched a £50 million homelessness prevention programme, which takes an end-to-end approach to preventing more people from becoming homeless and helping people to get their lives back on track when they have fallen through the safety net provided. Our programme will mean innovation and collaboration to prevent homelessness.
Our £20 million grant funding for prevention trailblazer areas will help areas to go further and faster with reform, laying the groundwork for many of the changes that we want to see through the Homelessness Reduction Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Those areas will develop and adopt best practice and data-driven approaches to identify people at risk of homelessness and provide them with early support to prevent a crisis.
Southwark, Newcastle and Greater Manchester—our early adopters—will be taking forward a range of initiatives. Successful projects will involve collaboration between a wide range of services to identify people who are at risk of homelessness and help them well before they are threatened with eviction. Trailblazer areas will test innovative approaches to preventing homelessness to help us build our evidence base on what we know works.
The £20 million rough sleeping grant fund, which forms part of this programme, will enable local areas to intervene early with rough sleepers before their problems become ingrained and to build a better local multiagency partnership to address people’s underlying problems. Building on the successes of the London rough sleeping social impact bond, the £10 million rough sleeping fund for social impact bonds will allow local partnerships to work with some of the most entrenched rough sleepers, focusing on getting them into accommodation and using personalised support to address their complex needs.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about me. Does he agree that one of the issues for rough sleepers and people threatened with homelessness is the complexity of the various reasons? Homelessness is not always the result of a private sector rental coming to an end. It may be caused by relationship breakdown. A homeless person may be an ex-offender or someone leaving the armed forces who is not used to settled accommodation. All these issues need personalised plans to assist those people to get into decent accommodation.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is right. Sometimes it is easy for us to simplify the challenges surrounding homelessness and rough sleeping, but most informed Members know that the position is far more complex. I welcome the provisions in his Bill for a personal plan that local authorities must go through with individuals, both people who are homeless and are owed a duty by a local authority to be housed and people who are not owed a duty to be housed. For the first time, they will get bespoke support. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that we must deal with this challenge at a local level, but I am also absolutely committed to making sure we work effectively across the Government to tackle it. I am driving action across the Government through a ministerial working group on homelessness, and one example I can give the House is in regard to mental health, where we are looking at what more can be done to make sure rough sleepers with mental health problems get the specialist support they need. The group is also looking at how we can ensure that people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, receive the help they need to get into work.
I want now to pick up on a number of the comments hon. Members made. First, it was great to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). She extolled the virtues of the way in which Portsmouth City Council is trying to tackle homelessness, particularly through prevention and the work it is doing upfront to try to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. It was good to hear that the council is also working closely with local charities and other partners, and that is something we certainly want to see in the proposals local areas bring to us in relation to the grant-funding programmes we are providing.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) made a number of important points. She mentioned the rough-sleeping statistics. They are now much more accurate than they were in 2010, when local authorities were not obliged to provide a return to central Government in relation to how many rough sleepers there were in their areas. They are now compelled to do that, so the data are far more accurate. We are looking, though, at how we can improve the data that the Department holds, and we are doing so by trying to work out when people become homeless on multiple occasions and how we can prevent that from happening again to them.
I welcome what the hon. Lady said about the work Boots is doing in relation to sanitary products for women who, unfortunately, find themselves sleeping rough—an issue that she is particularly interested in. A number of programmes are centrally funded from the Department for Communities and Local Government for outreach organisations that deal with rough sleepers. In that sense, we do provide funding to those organisations, and they do, in turn, provide the type of support the hon. Lady rightly recognises is required for women rough sleepers.
Rob Marris
May I take the Minister back to the question of data? The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for example, raised the issue of hidden homelessness and sofa-surfing. The Minister has just said that the figures on rough sleepers are getting more accurate—I welcome that—but what are the Government doing to collect more accurate data on hidden homelessness and the sofa surfers, who are particularly at risk of becoming rough sleepers?
Mr Jones
That is obviously a much more difficult thing to measure, but with regard to the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which the Government are backing, I am absolutely sure, and we are certainly factoring this into our sums, that a significantly higher number of single people who are homeless—the type of people the hon. Gentleman identifies—will present at a local authority, because they will expect to receive far better advice and support than they do now, and they will have a personal plan, which we hope will allow their homelessness to be alleviated. So I think we will be able to measure that in a better way. On whether we can go as far as identifying all those people, I think that would be rather difficult.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East was right to identify the challenges, particularly in London. He was also right to identify the record funding—£3.15 billion—that the Government are providing to the Mayor of London to build 90,000 new homes across a range of tenures to suit the needs of Londoners. It is great to see that in a spirit of co-operation the Mayor has welcomed that record funding.
My hon. Friend also hit the nail on the head when he said that just having a place for a rough sleeper to stay is not enough, as we discussed earlier in the debate. We have to look at the underlying personal challenges and tackle them in the work that we do. The cross-Government working group that I lead is looking to tackle a number of other issues in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) made an excellent speech in which he particularly highlighted his knowledge of this subject as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness. He highlighted the tragic consequences that can happen where rough sleepers are not supported sufficiently, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight). I was heartened to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South about his support for the Government’s programmes, particularly those on tackling rough sleeping.
The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned a housing association in her constituency that she said was not providing adequate housing conditions for its tenants. That is an extremely serious situation if it is the case. I recommend that she take that up with the local council. I would be keen to hear more detail from her on the types of issues that are being experienced. I can say, as somebody who was quite heavily involved in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, that there are now significant penalties for rogue landlords. Local authorities can now levy significant financial penalties of up to £30,000 on rogue landlords who do not provide adequate housing for the people to whom they rent property.
My hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made excellent speeches underlining the causes of rough sleeping. They were absolutely right to highlight the role of charitable workers and volunteers, who do tremendous work up and down the country. I would like to thank those volunteers, on behalf of the Government, for doing such an excellent job on behalf of a group of very vulnerable people.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) mentioned funding for the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has brought to the House. I can assure the hon. Lady that it is the Government’s intention to fund the Bill. We recognise that new burdens will be created, and as the new obligations on councils come forward, we will fund that. We fully expect, though, that the Bill will create a situation whereby councils deal with homelessness far more quickly. It will therefore become far cheaper for local authorities to deal with and support people because they will not be dealing with a housing crisis as often as they do currently. She referred to temporary accommodation. I can assure her that, by law, temporary accommodation must be suitable. If it is not in the case of the constituent she mentioned then that constituent has the right to a review and should go back to her local authority in that regard.
This has been an excellent debate on an extremely important issue. Our ambitions are backed by a new funding programme and the most ambitious legislative reform in decades. This Government are taking an end-to-end approach to tackling homelessness because we—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I hear the Opposition Chief Whip asking whether the Question might now be put, but I think he was just pipped to the post by the Minister concluding and sitting down.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
No, the Minister had perfectly discharged his duty, so there is no necessity for the Question on the closure to be put. I shall put the Question.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), that the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 12 December, be approved.
The threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe. That means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning. We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise it and keep the public safe. The nature of terrorism is constantly evolving. There are organisations that recruit, radicalise and promote and encourage terrorism, as well as those that commit terrible acts of violence against innocent people.
Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities. The group we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is National Action. This is the 21st order to be made under section 3(3)(a) of the 2000 Act. Hon. Members will be aware that this is the first time we have laid a proscription order for a far-right group. The Government are committed to tackling terrorism, regardless of what motivates it. National Action is a group whose views and ideology stand in direct contrast to the core values of Britain and the United Kingdom.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the decision to ban this group. Have there been any deproscriptions since the last time the House passed an order proscribing an organisation in July?
Mr Wallace
It has not happened since July. Two groups have been deproscribed. The People’s Mujaheddin of Iran or the MEK was deproscribed at the High Court and a Sikh group linked to allegations of extremism made representations and was deproscribed as a result.
Despite its name, National Action seeks to divide communities and stir up hatred—actions that are entirely contrary to the interests of our nation. Proscribing this neo-Nazi group will prevent its membership from growing and prevent it from spreading propaganda, which allows a culture of hatred and division to thrive. It will also help to prevent National Action from radicalising people who may be vulnerable to extreme ideologies and at risk of emulating the terrorist acts it glorifies.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister share my view that we should all revile this group because its members stood on the steps of St George’s Hall in Liverpool during one of its demonstrations and did Nazi salutes, which filled the whole of Liverpool with hatred and disgust for them? People will welcome this move today.
Mr Wallace
Anyone who seeks to glorify the Nazis is a threat to this country and our values. Members of this House died fighting Nazis to keep this country and Europe free. I would describe people who think that this country would somehow like to follow a Nazi course of action as twisted to say the least.
Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she
“believes that it is concerned in terrorism.”
If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise that discretion, including the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription acts to halt fundraising and recruitment, and makes it possible to seize cash associated with the organisation.
Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation, including open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in the decision-making process. The decision to proscribe is taken only with great care and after careful consideration of the particular case. It is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that National Action is currently concerned in terrorism, and that discretionary factors weigh in favour of proscription.
Luciana Berger
The Home Secretary told us just the other week that she was particularly concerned about the increasingly sophisticated methods that this group was using on the internet both to recruit new members and to promote its warped ideology. Will the Minister share a little more about how, if the order is passed, he and the Home Office will ensure that this organisation is held to account and any material it puts online is removed?
Mr Wallace
I have to be careful that we do not undermine the operational capability and effectiveness of the law agencies, which may take action. But it is certainly the case that, when an organisation is proscribed, it allows us to bring the full force of those agencies to bear on the threat posed by the proscribed organisation and the individuals within it. Within that, I would expect measures to make sure that any use of the internet for what is a kind of grooming is restricted or, I would hope, stopped completely, along with other measures. But I will leave that up to the security services and the police, as that will get the best effect, and it would be wrong of me to speculate further about what they may or may not do.
Although I cannot comment on the specific intelligence behind the decision to proscribe, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the United Kingdom, and conducts threatening street demonstrations and activities aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people. National Action’s ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent race war, which the group claims to be an active part of.
The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived race traitors. National Action has links to other extreme right-wing groups abroad, including in Europe. In May 2016, National Action members attended the Buchenwald concentration camp, where they made Nazi salutes and posted images online.
The Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its form. Alongside the strategy, our Prevent work will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism. The group is relatively small and has been in operation in the UK for only a few years, but the impact of its activities has been felt in a number of United Kingdom communities.
Keith Vaz
In the evidence presented to the Home Secretary by the agencies before the decision was made to proscribe the group, was there any evidence of any links with other organisations in different parts of Europe? We have seen that far-right groups tend not to operate in only one country.
Mr Wallace
I cannot expand on the intelligence behind this particular decision, but I agree that we see far-right groups with a European network, and being active both here and abroad. Far right groups from abroad are active in the United Kingdom as well.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether any other groups similar to this particularly unpleasant group are near to having the same sort of decision made about them by the Government?
Mr Wallace
There are obviously other groups out there promoting hate. We keep them under review where they wander close to terrorism, and I would come straight back to this House should we gather the evidence or intelligence that meant we must do so. As I have said, other European far-right groups are active in the United Kingdom, either at other people’s rallies or through having a presence among their ethnic grouping here—the Polish far right, for example, would be active in the United Kingdom or have a branch.
Since early 2016, National Action has become more active, and its activities and propaganda material have crossed the threshold from extremism into terrorism. Its online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language, and condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes two tweets posted in 2016 in connection with the murder of our friend Jo Cox, which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act. One stated:
“Only 649 MPs to go”.
Another, containing a photo of Thomas Mair, reads:
“don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain. #Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”
The group also disseminated an image doctored to condone and celebrate the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit. People might have become aware of these messages who could reasonably have been expected to infer that these acts should be emulated, and therefore such propaganda amounts to the unlawful glorification of terrorism. The Orlando massacre was an atrocity in which 49 people lost their lives. Jo Cox’s murder was a tragedy, familiar to us all, and closer to home. Both are examples of attacks committed for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause, and both were terrorist attacks. If we allow such events to be celebrated and encouraged, we live with the risk that they will be repeated.
Our strategy to combat terrorism looks at the full spectrum of activity, and that includes ensuring that groups that unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts are prevented from continuing to stir up hatred and encourage violence. It is right that we add National Action to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Subject to the agreement of the House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 16 December.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome this order proscribing the new Nazi group National Action and give it our full support. We have heard from the Minister and others on both sides of the House about some of its appalling actions and propaganda, whether Nazi salutes in Liverpool or online communications glorifying the killing of our late colleague Jo Cox.
Terrorism has become the scourge of society, but we cannot give an inch to this plague of our time. Our swift action in proscribing this far-right group will provide some reassurance to all parts of the community in these increasingly difficult and unstable times. This week, I visited the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism unit and saw at first hand the difficult work it does to detect terror threats. It was clear that in an increasingly digital age, ideology has become more extreme and more pervasive, and that digital technology is the key recruitment tool for terrorism. We can only imagine the effect it can have on some impressionable young people sitting in their bedrooms and seeing the online propaganda put out by such groups. That is why proscription is so important.
Because of the advances in technology and the changes in our media, specifically social media, terrorist ideology has become a cancer. We need to remain vigilant, faster, smarter and swifter in dealing with the threat. It is completely right, therefore, that we take this action. As we look forward to 2017, the major threats we face are asymmetric—a couple of young men in their bedroom can wreak terror in their community—international and deadly, and they are so rapidly changing that we could not in the House have foreseen them a decade ago. This far-right group is a genuine threat to our domestic security, and Parliament’s legislation must reflect the urgency and complexity of the situation.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
We in the SNP support this organisation’s being added to the proscribed list. I struggle to say its name in the House, for risk of glorifying it, so I will refer to it as NA. Issues of national security are of course reserved to this place, but there has been close co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and that will continue. It is our desire in Scotland, as much as in the rest of the UK, to do everything possible to meet the threat of terrorism.
On the basis of the tweets alone about our departed and much loved colleague Jo Cox, which will have disgusted anybody with a sense of reasonable objectivity, as well as the appalling words it put out about the terrible attack in Orlando, we have no hesitation in backing the Government’s call to add this organisation to the proscribed list. Of courses, all additions to the proscribed list must be necessary and proportionate. We must always have those two criteria and qualifications in mind, and we believe it is abundantly clear that they are met in this case.
We came to the House a couple of months ago to add another four or five organisations to the proscribed list, which was successfully done with our support. When we debated that statutory instrument, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is not in his place today, and I called on the then Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), to contact the British Broadcasting Corporation to see whether it would desist from using the phrases “so-called Islamic State” and “Islamic State” when referring to the organisation that the Government now rightly call Daesh. The Minister gave clear commitments to contact the BBC and make those representations, but I must admit that in my very occasional watching of BBC News, I have noticed that the phrase continues to be used, perhaps more than ever. I therefore respectfully ask the Minister today, for whom I have great respect, whether he will take that suggestion away, perhaps talk to the previous incumbent, and contact the BBC so that it stops using this awful phrase, which frankly gives legitimacy to an organisation that is neither Islamic nor a state.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I along with others in the House completely support the Minister’s decision to proscribe this organisation. Ministers obviously have important and sensitive information that they are unwilling to share with the House on such occasions, but the Minister has gone a long way to reassure the House that the information he has is more than sufficient to take the action he is proposing today.
National Action will be the first extreme right-wing organisation to be banned, which is a very welcome step. We certainly need to be very strong in dealing with right-wing extremism and we need to be very concerned about it. I raised the issue of what was happening in Europe. The world can never forget the 77 victims of Anders Breivik in 2011. The Minister mentioned the words of the organisation in question when it praised the killer of our colleague Jo Cox. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) was right to remind us of what the Home Secretary said only this week: that this group has no place in our country.
The shadow Home Secretary—for whom I have enormous respect and who has campaigned all her political life against right-wing extremism and extremism of any kind—has visited the counter-terrorism unit, as she said. I am sure she will join me and the rest of the House in praising those who are part of that unit, who day after day, day and night, work so hard to keep us safe. Under the incredible leadership of Mark Rowley, they ensure that many of the plots that we do not know about are dealt with and prevented before they come to fruition. Mark Rowley has recognised that increasing numbers in the United Kingdom are “gravitating towards extremism” and has talked about 60 to 70 cases each month. This is a very large figure indeed.
It is important to recognise what has happened since the referendum this year. The number of hate crimes, especially against Polish and other eastern European citizens, has increased by 41% since 2015.
Luciana Berger
I note what my right hon. Friend has said about the number of people of concern. Does he share my concern that the latest figures from Prevent show that around 300 young people under the age of 18 have been identified as posing a threat of extremism from the far right? That figure should concern us all and should embolden the Home Office to do even more to ensure that the next generation embraces equality, not division.
Keith Vaz
I am astonished at those figures, but I think they are witness to what the shadow Home Secretary has said about access to the internet and social media. Individuals who may be very young could be operating from their homes, involving themselves in this kind of hatred. It is very easy to disseminate hatred, as my hon. Friend will know—she has been one of the victims in this House of hatred coming from social media and the internet. She has behaved with absolute dignity in the face of it. She is right to raise these figures. These are issues of enormous concern. The younger the people who get involved in these activities, the more difficult it becomes to turn them around once they become ingrained with them. There has also been a spike in anti-Semitic incidents across the country—11% higher than last year. We should thank the police and the counter-terrorism unit for the work they do in trying to combat this.
Oddly, just before this particular debate, the House unanimously endorsed without any debate the Government’s decision to opt into Europol—one of the very few organisations in Europe that we are joining at the same time as we are leaving the rest of the EU. Europol has an extremely important role to play in ensuring that we combat far-right extremism and extremism in general all over Europe. It has an amazing head in Rob Wainwright, who is a Brit, and it is able, through the capacity that we have helped to build as part of Europol, to ensure that we deal with these organisations.
I end by asking the Minister the question I asked a little earlier, as I think he may have misunderstood it. I asked how many organisations had been deproscribed since July. I think the People’s Mujaheddin were deproscribed several years ago—not since July. The Minister is right to prescribe that we should keep on monitoring the deproscription process. On numerous occasions when these orders have been discussed, I have raised the situation of the LTTE—Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—and my Tamil constituents, who still feel stigmatised by the fact that the LTTE is banned, even though it no longer exists. We need to be very aware of the need to look at the issue of de-proscription and keep it under review, while of course welcoming what the Minister has done.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, had made it very clear that he thinks there should be a time limit. In the case of this particular organisation, I think we are all agreed that the Minister has come to this House and made a powerful case. The House will speak with one voice in supporting what he has done absolutely. We look forward to this organisation being monitored very carefully indeed, so that none of its evil tentacles are passed on to other organisations, perhaps bearing a different name, but with the same personnel involved, who will seek to poison and destroy the minds of the people of this country.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, but I am surprised and a little disappointed that we did not have it earlier. In the wake of Jo’s murder, the entire media coverage was dominated by issues about Thomas Mair’s mental health and the idea that he was a lone wolf. It was exactly the same after the atrocities committed by Anders Breivik. We should compare and contrast that with when Muslims commit terrorist atrocities, and the entire public discourse is about the ideology that motivated them to commit those horrendous crimes. There are demands for Muslim leaders to condemn and apologise on their behalf. Yet here we are, six months after Jo’s murder, and only now are we debating the extremist perverted ideology that inspired Thomas Mair to commit his horrific crime.
Mr Wallace
It was felt that bringing this proscription forward earlier could have jeopardised a fair trial. To avoid undermining the trial of Jo Cox’s murderer, it was best to delay to ensure that the trial was completed, given the murderer’s link to far-right groups and far-right ideology.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I was by no means criticising the Government when I mentioned the delay in bringing the proscription forward; my comment was more about the media’s treatment of this atrocity and the general public discourse. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s intention today and welcome the proscription of National Action. It is clearly a terrorist organisation, and I note that it changed its slogan in the wake of Jo’s murder to “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain!”, in the light of Thomas Mair’s plea hearing.
I also want to take this opportunity to call on the Government to give time to debate the proscription of Britain First. I called for such a debate last month. I did not call for Britain First’s proscription; I just called for the House to be given evidence and to look at the details of the group’s paramilitary activity and anti-democratic behaviour. As a result of that and of how the media covered my call, I have received very explicit death threats. I have been called a traitor and a Muslim-lover. On Friday, an individual went through every one of my YouTube videos and said he would not rest until I was murdered. If that is not evidence that Britain First should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, I am not sure what is. I hope that the Minister will consider seeking time in the House to debate just that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is important that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) knows that everyone in the House stands with her. The Minister will say that at the end, but it is important that hon. Lady knows that we stand shoulder to shoulder with her.
I come from Northern Ireland, where we have great knowledge and understanding of the Terrorism Act 2000. I thank the Minister for his work in proscribing membership of National Action, which has been labelled by the media as a neo-Nazi group. Members of what is commonly known as a racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic group will now understand that it is illegal to be a part of it and will have to question why it has been made illegal.
I agree with the Minister’s decision to ensure that the group is proscribed and see it as a cog in the wheels of ensuring that while people are entitled to their own politics such opinions are viewed as warped and can never and should never be expressed in the way this group has expressed them thus far. The vile way in which the murder of our colleague Jo Cox was touted by the group says a lot about its warped, demented ideology.
Without disclosing anything that he should not disclose, will the Minister tell us what is being done to monitor other far-right groups that skirt the limits of the law but are close to stepping over the line and working towards evil ends?
I caution Members that proscribing an organisation unfortunately does not signify the end of the group. I only wish that it did, because it would be a great day for everyone in this House and further afield. Dissident Republican groups have been proscribed for many years, yet there were 52 bomb attacks in Northern Ireland in 2015-16—the highest in years—so the fears are real. Only this week, I raised that matter at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and asked representatives from the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the relationship that dissident Republicans have with international terrorism in the middle east and north Africa, which are awash with explosives and guns. Dissident Republicans have access to Semtex and the threat to mainland GB is serious, so that needs urgent attention. It is wonderful that the Minister has stated that this behaviour will not be tolerated, but the Home Office must make available the resources that put the teeth into this legislation—counter-terrorism-trained officers who can gather intelligence and do the business to keep us safe in this House and our constituents safe across the whole of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not simply from this group, but the other 70 groups that have been proscribed under this Act and the further 14 groups that were proscribed before the enactment of legislation in Northern Ireland. This is a watch list of the lowest of the low and those who threaten the very democratic process that we are privileged to be part of. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police service in Great Britain must have the resources to contain the threat that exists, making it necessary to proscribe these organisations.
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement here tonight, but I also encourage a greater allocation of resources to deal with the threat, and to keep people safe and able to carry on with their lives—we have a responsibility in this House to ensure that.
Mr Wallace
As I said at the outset, the Home Secretary and I strongly believe that National Action should be added to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the 2000 Act. I am grateful for the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members to this short debate. I am grateful to the Labour party and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for their support, and I can assure her that we will continue to do all we can to monitor people who pose a risk, and want to link violence to their cause and to inspire hatred on whatever part of the spectrum it may be.
I am grateful for the support of the Scottish National party, and I can confirm that my predecessor did indeed get in touch with the BBC. I also say to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) something that may frustrate us from time to time: the BBC is editorially independent. We both need to continue to press the case on the point he makes; the media have to be very careful with language in all these areas.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) rightly made the point that the media have a strong role to play. We did not take our eye off the far right. We have been making sure we watch where these people go, and when they cross from hate speech into extolling terrorism. We have all been involved. The Prevent programme has involved a considerable number of referrals of people on the far right, but the media have for a long time chosen to focus on one section of society, sometimes too much so and at the expense of others.
The lesson from this, as I see when I go out and about around the country, is: if you do not think this applies to your area, think again. People are being radicalised and groomed, perhaps in their bedrooms, on the internet, and this knows no boundaries, be it class, background, race or religion. The ability for the internet to radicalise people and for those behind this to manipulate the internet to do that is incredible. Tragically, in today’s society we are going to have to deal with more of that, not less. I go to local authorities that clearly do not think this applies to them, but I am afraid I know that it does.
What we have seen with the far right is that there are parts of this country where it is successfully recruiting people and they are part of that Prevent programme. The good news is what can happen when they get into that programme. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned the Channel referrals. I spoke to someone in the north of England recently who had referred a 15-year-old to that programme for the far right, and that child is now back in mainstream education, has gone on to further education and has built a future for himself. Prevent is there to help; it is there not only to prevent people from being radicalised into extremism and terrorism, but to make sure that people are given help and support.
The points the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made about the internet are absolutely right. We use the counter-terrorism internet referral unit to work with internet providers to remove material as it comes online, and since 2010 they have removed 220,000 pieces of terrorist-related material online. That work is ongoing and constant, and we must make sure we do it.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does not need lessons from me on Northern Ireland-related terrorism, as the people involved have not gone away and it is still an active problem that we are trying to deal with. I am afraid that they have moved with the times and used many of the smooth, slick recruitment materials that we see across the board.
I am grateful to the House for its support. We should also take this opportunity to remember that some people will not be celebrating Christmas this year. Some of our security services and police will be on duty keeping us safe while we are having our breaks at home. They will be making sure that hon. Members in this House who are under threat and the wider public are protected. I want to place it on the record that we greatly appreciate the work that they do. They are not allowed to shout about it. They get almost no recognition in public. I know from the job that I do how important they are to keeping us safe. Proscription is one of the measures that we can give them to tackle the threat.
Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith, social group or ideological motivation. It is based on clear evidence that an organisation is involved in terrorism. It is my firm opinion and that of the Home Secretary that, on the basis of available evidence, National Action has promoted and encouraged acts of terrorism. This includes the unlawful glorification of the murder of Jo Cox, committed by Thomas Mair, and the unlawful glorification of the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. It is therefore appropriate for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe this group. The proscription of this group demonstrates our condemnation of its activities. Proscribing it will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action and ensure that it cannot operate here. It will prevent National Action’s membership growing, or help to stop those who might be vulnerable to radicalisation and possibly at risk of emulating terrorist attacks. Being drawn into the group’s extreme and distorted ideology is what we are trying to stop. Therefore, I commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Baverstock Academy
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 1,500 residents of my constituency of Selly Oak, including a great many parents who live in Druids Heath, protesting at the threat and closure of their only secondary school, Baverstock Academy. Whatever the problems at Baverstock, they are not the fault of the pupils or the parents, and they should not be punished for the failings of others by losing their only secondary school.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Birmingham Selly Oak constituency,
Declares that Baverstock Academy should not be closed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to save Baverstock Academy.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001999]
Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing time to debate this issue of critical importance today.
Having worked in corporate governance before I was elected, I am well accustomed to the fact that it is not a subject that excites or even particularly interests many people. I completely accept that, and it is demonstrated by how rarely it is raised or debated in this House. However, it is utterly fundamental to the workings of our economy and to how wealth is distributed across the country. What it essentially boils down to is this one key question: who does our economy work for?
In a year of global convulsions, that is a question being asked in unlikely quarters. When Mark Carney made his significant intervention, warning of “staggering inequalities” in an economy where many “lack a stake”, some voices said that he had strayed too far from his brief. Not only was his intervention appropriate, it was absolutely urgent, because while 75 companies on the FTSE 100 collectively made a profit of £32 billion last year, most ordinary people’s wages are predicted to flatline well into a second lost decade. That makes people justifiably angry and society less robust.
In is in that context that the Prime Minister’s corporate governance agenda should be seen, and although it was welcome that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should introduce proposals for reform, I am afraid that the signals are not good. The Prime Minister floated worker representation on boards on her first day in office, but then informed the CBI that that would be voluntary. In a statement to the House, the Secretary of State lauded his own success in bringing down average pay for chief executive officers from £4.3 million to £4.25 million—I am afraid that that is hardly a job well done.
I know first-hand the enormous creative potential that a well-functioning company, backed by a strong governance regime, can unleash. Unlike the Government, who appear to have stepped back from desperately needed reform, I know that the status quo cannot continue. It represents grotesque pay ratios between the top and the bottom, and astronomical executive pay. We have seen the corporate greed of BHS, Sports Direct, Gunstones, ASOS and JD Sports, which treat their low-paid workforce with little more than contempt; the behaviour of energy companies quick to hike prices to maximise profits, but slow to lower them when the market shifts; and the short-termism that has resulted in productivity flatlining and investment being stifled as directors seek to maximise shareholder value at the cost of everything else.
That is nothing short of a crisis of legitimacy in the shareholder model, because confidence is placed in shareholders that, in my experience, is undeserved and misunderstands the completely altered nature of shareholders in UK plc. Although I welcome the Green Paper, I fear that it clings to a model that belongs firmly in the last century. We are not dealing with the shareholders of 30 years ago, who had a stake in the UK and held shares for a significant period. In 1998, just a third of shares were owned by non-UK investors, but now the vast majority are owned by such investors. In fact, it is almost absurd to talk about shareholders as investors, as most do not hold the shares for long—some hold them for just seconds. The figures are contested, but the most reliable ones that I have seen suggest that the average holding period has fallen from eight years in the 1960s to just four months, and as much as 70% of trades are high frequency.
The equity chain is grossly over-intermediated, meaning that those with skin in the game have little or no involvement in the company at the other end of the chain. Investors tend to own only about 3% of a company at any given time. The notion that that fragmented group will clamp down on executive remuneration, or is interested in the voice of workers or the long-term contribution of the company to the communities that it serves, is either naive or disingenuous.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in a speech on an important issue. Does she agree that the Government’s social responsibility does not lie simply in assessing how much GDP goes on benefits? It should be a living, breathing policy that takes account of the changing needs of the communities that the hon. Lady has discussed, rather than a document that is assessed at Budget time. Does she further agree that the previous Government’s big society ideal was never given the resources that it should have been given to take off? That should be considered and, indeed, reviewed.
Louise Haigh
I completely agree with those sentiments. Corporate responsibility is too often tacked on at the end of a company’s activities, in a completely separate report. It is not embedded throughout the organisation as it should be, which is why a strong, effective governance regime is vital to ensure that companies respect the communities in which they operate, the environment and their social impact.
At ASOS, despite the shocking evidence with which it was presented of mistreatment of its workforce, investors went ahead and backed the bumper pay package for executives. Why rock the boat when investors are getting their return? Since advisory votes on executive pay came into force, CEO pay has continued to climb to obscene levels, and the average vote in favour of remuneration packages has been a shocking 93%. The Kay review, commissioned by the coalition Government, which presented a fantastic analysis of the issues but fell disappointingly short on recommendations, said that
“the pursuit of shareholder value has distorted corporate principles”.
Rather than push against that open door, the Government seem intent on clinging to an outdated and inappropriate model that puts the interests of international shareholders above all else—above the interests of the workforce, of stakeholders, of supply chains and of the wider community. It does not make economic sense and it is deeply unpatriotic.
Yes, the shares in UK plc may rise and international investors will have their red letter day. What good is that if workers and communities here in this country do not feel the benefit? The Government cling to a model that says that hedge funds on Wall Street are more important, and should have a greater say over the direction of a UK company, than the workers whose mortgages, pensions and livelihoods are dependent on the success of that business. Rather than having a stake in the community, investors are increasingly coming to resemble buy-to-let landlords, skimming off profits with little interest in the community at large, yet they hold all the cards.
As the Bank of England’s Andy Haldane has said, if shareholders hold all the power,
“we might expect high distribution of profits to this cohort, at the expense of ploughing back these profits…or distributing them to workers”.
That is exactly what we have seen. Wealth for the 1% has grown unchecked while wages for the rest have stagnated.
It is not without reason that research and development spend in countries like our own is so low when the focus of investors and directors alike is on maximising the value of shares. That is why we need change. Our companies must look closer to home and above all to their employees, their supply chains and their communities, and give the people they rely on a stake. British workers create the wealth, the services and the products from which shareholders earn their reward. We should give them real influence in the businesses that they work for. We must modernise company law to correct the absurdity that denies employees a say but gives power to hedge funds.
If we give powerful voting rights to overseas investors who speculate in the shares of our major employers, it is right to give the programmer, the secretary, the driver or the picker who works for those businesses some power too. It is not about one or the other. It is about giving employees an equal stake. Having grappled with these issues in practice myself, I know that the big issue is that the more directors are accountable to increasingly anonymous investors, the more our top businesses end up being accountable to no one at all.
Preparing for today’s debate, I was reminded that Keynes wrote that bad ideas die slowly. He also wrote:
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”
I am not pretending that reform in this area is easy. If we are honest, the reforms to fiduciary duties by the last Labour Government have had little impact, given that conservative legal advice invariably prejudices short-term shareholder interests. That is why transparency has to be at the heart of any reform. Large companies should report qualitatively on their impact on their communities, their environment and their workers, in the interest not merely of corporate accountability but of good management.
Reforms to section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 will inevitably be an important part of that. The Financial Reporting Council made the point that more focused reporting on exactly how companies are complying with the various elements of section 172 is crucial. That may very well have to become a requirement, as surveys suggests that a large number of shareholders are not aware of the very section on which it is their duty to hold directors to account.
Today Mark Carney supported better reporting on climate change risk, which is undeniably material for a growing number of sectors. However, I have real concerns about how effective section 172 is. After all, it was introduced back in 2006 and since then we have seen some extreme examples of corporate excess and recklessness that have brought the economy to its knees and led to a bail-out of such astonishing proportions that we will still be paying for it for decades to come. Section 172 has been in force for more than 10 years, and in that time a director has had to have regard to the interests of the company’s employees, the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, and the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct. It would be almost laughable if it were not such a desperate example of the corporate neglect which has maligned this country for decades.
Throughout that time we have lacked a regulator with teeth, yet still the FRC says that it should be incumbent on shareholders to enforce the provisions of section 172. The fact that the FRC is only now commencing its investigation into KPMG’s audit of HBOS, some nine years after the collapse and bail-out, should tell us all we need to know. There is a serious problem with the enforcement of our corporate governance regime. The Government need to go much further if they want to see meaningful change. I am not convinced by the argument that we should leave such a crucial aspect of company law to shareholders who have so consistently demonstrated little interest in it and an authority seemingly unwilling to take action.
In its current definition, the duty to promote the success of the company under section 172 is seen as serving shareholder interest. As John Kay found in his review of equity markets, with share trading playing an increasingly important role in the strategy of investors, it is not at all clear how short-term investors can support the long-term good of companies. The long-term success of a company must therefore be codified in changes to section 172.
Changes in the legal duties of directors to prioritise the long-term success of the company at large over shareholders would be a significant shift, but it is one that many voices that previously advocated only minimal change are now calling for. Employees having a statutory role at board level must also be a line in the sand. The Government must not row back on giving workers an equal stake and, with it, bringing their different priorities and fresh perspective to the boardroom. Diversity is vital in governance terms—not for moral or representative reasons, but to challenge and address what Margaret Heffernan has termed “wilful blindness”.
With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister what proposals she has discussed and considered. Much has been said about introducing a statutory role, with a third of the board being drawn from workers, whose representatives would themselves be elected. Has the Minister considered those specific proposals? What assessment has she made of the quality of reporting on environmental, social and governance issues and the impact it has had on internalising costs? Has the Minister considered the need for advisory panels to sit alongside the board, which would draw from those directly referred to in section 172, bringing a much-needed voice to directors’ responsibilities under that section?
Surely the long-term goal has to be allowing other stakeholders an equal stake in holding the board and directors to account. The Government simply cannot afford to row back on that reform. At the heart of it is the crisis that Carney referred to: people lack a stake, and they cannot see a way to exert influence.
When I was working in the City of London, the risk taking, bonuses and pay packets were viewed as the symbol of the corporate neglect that has done so much to shake trust in big business and that played its part in bringing our economy to its knees. No doubt those things were and still are grotesque, unchecked by shareholder power and in need of urgent reform. There is a crisis of legitimacy over who governs our companies and, in turn, whose interests they act in. The Government would be wise to seize that with both hands, because we cannot ignore it any longer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing today’s debate on corporate governance and social responsibility. I know it is an area in which she has a long-standing interest and considerable expertise born of her previous career—she and I share a business background. However, I listened carefully to what she said, and I do not fully recognise the picture of corporate life she has painted, although, certainly, some of it had strong resonance.
We require no reminder of just how important it is that business is conducted in a socially responsible way. There are over 3 million businesses in the UK, from small start-ups to large established businesses with a presence across the globe. They provide employment for over 26 million people. Whether large or small, they are a critical part of our society. They are not in some way separate from it. The way businesses operate and the decisions they take have a big impact on their employees, customers and suppliers and on the communities in which they are based.
The Government have a key role in setting minimum legal standards that businesses must meet in areas such as employment and consumer protection, environmental standards, and the protection of creditors in the event of insolvency. These provide a vital underpinning for business activity; it is the corporate and legal responsibility of business to comply with that framework, and I believe the vast majority do. Where businesses fall short, they are rightly held to account.
However, corporate responsibility and the way businesses manage their impact on society go beyond simple legal compliance. If we are to achieve our objective of an economy that works for everyone, we need more businesses to aim at the high standards of responsible business practice achieved by our best companies. The Government’s role in that context is to encourage those businesses that lead in good practice and to encourage others to follow suit.
The hon. Lady mentioned diversity in senior business management and at board level. We are encouraging business-led moves towards a more diverse and inclusive culture in the top management of our biggest companies that will set a lead for others to follow. Boardrooms should mirror wider society, and businesses should make the most of all the talent they have in their diverse workforces. We are following up the success in increasing representation of women on boards of our biggest companies by working with businesses to ensure that more talented women achieve senior executive roles. We welcomed the report last month from Sir Philip Hampton and Dame Helen Alexander, who are now pressing ahead with proposals to drive up the representation of women at senior executive level and build on the pipeline for female management and talent.
We also welcomed last month the launch of the report by Sir John Parker and his recommendations for addressing the worryingly low level of representation of black and minority ethnic directors in UK boardrooms. Half the FTSE 100 companies do not have ethnic minority representation on their board, and that is shameful. Diversity at the top of our businesses is about trust. It shows workforces that their boards are representative of them and that routes to the top are open to them. People want to believe that if they work hard they too can get there, whatever their background.
As the hon. Lady reminded the House, the Government have recently published a Green Paper on corporate governance reform in which we are exploring options for strengthening aspects of our corporate governance framework. The UK has a good reputation for corporate governance that combines high standards with low burdens, but this reputation can be maintained only if Government and business review and upgrade those standards from time to time. She mentioned several recent reports on corporate governance, which followed landmark reports by Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel in the 1990s.
The Green Paper invites views on three main areas. First, it asks for views on options to strengthen shareholder influence on executive pay, to improve the transparency of reporting on executive pay, and to strengthen the link between executive pay and long-term company performance. The hon. Lady was right to point out that the gap between rising CEO pay and corporate performance had grown too wide in recent years.
Secondly, the Green Paper asks for views on options for strengthening the connection between the boards of directors of companies and their employees, customers, and other stakeholders. All the best companies know that there are economic as well as societal benefits to be derived from maintaining strong links with interested groups. However, we need to consider what more can be done to ensure that all UK companies are equipped with an appropriate model of employee, customer, and wider engagement.
Finally, the Green Paper seeks views on whether some of the features of the corporate governance and reporting framework covering quoted companies should be extended to our largest privately held companies. Many of these companies have an economic footprint that is equal to that of listed companies. For example, there are approximately 2,500 private companies with more than 1,000 employees. In asking these questions, we want to improve the ability of UK businesses to take decisions that are informed by a wider range of views and better support long-term company performance and sustainability.
Louise Haigh
I absolutely support proposals to extend reporting to private companies, but will the Minister comment on how effective the current reporting regime is? Some businesses certainly report at an absolutely excellent level. However, I used to have the arduous and unenviable task of reading through some of these reports, and for many companies it is just a tick-box exercise. The FRC is not sufficiently resourced in terms of staff or sanctions properly to enforce the regime on companies that refuse to report properly and raise their standards, as she rightly said, to those of the businesses that are doing well in this area.
Margot James
I agree that the standard of reporting on the non-financial aspects of corporate performance is mixed and varied. One of the purposes of our Green Paper is to bring the standards of the poorer companies in terms of reporting, and indeed within other parameters, up to the standards of the best.
One option is for companies to appoint individuals to company boards to represent these stakeholder views. In the case of employees, this could be someone who works for the company—a worker representative. There is nothing in UK law to prevent unitary boards from including worker representatives as full members. Indeed, such arrangements can work well for some companies, FirstGroup plc being the best-known example. But very few UK companies have adopted it. There are undoubtedly more companies who could benefit from this approach, and the consultation period provides an opportunity for the case to be made.
Given the huge variety of UK companies, it is unrealistic to think that one size will fit all corporate requirements. For other companies a different approach to workforce engagement will work better. That is why the Green Paper makes it clear that we are not proposing to mandate the direct appointment of employees to company boards. Instead the Green Paper looks to generate a debate on the range of options that companies can choose to improve the connection between boardroom and workforce. The best companies know that there are economic benefits to be gained from understanding and maintaining healthy relationships with employees and customers. The key point is to ensure that all companies are equipped with an appropriate model of engagement to deliver a stronger voice for employees and other stakeholders in the boardroom.
The hon. Lady mentioned section 172 of the Companies Act 2006. We are not consulting on amending the wording in that section, but we are consulting on whether, and if so how, companies could provide more information on the steps that directors are taking to fulfil their duties under that section. We are also consulting on how to strengthen the connection between boardrooms and other voices, as I mentioned earlier. We would welcome comment—the hon. Lady’s views will be considered, along with those of other interested parties—on how we could get companies to report more fully on how directors are fulfilling their duties under that section.
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for initiating this debate, which has drawn attention to the key contribution that businesses can and should make to society. It has also provided an opportunity to set out steps that the Government are taking to raise standards in responsible business practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Ministerial Corrections
(8 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(8 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that we will continue to provide our armed forces with the best possible equipment and that, where appropriate and where that standard is met, that will be equipment developed and manufactured in the UK?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is right that we need to focus on the best equipment and getting the right capability for our armed forces. We will also always seek the best value for money for the taxpayer, but we will seek to get that UK content as strong as possible. The F-35 is an example. Fifteen per cent. of each of the 3,000 planes in the global programme are made at Warton in the north-west, and the UK has been selected as the global hub for a large number of elements for the maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade of those fantastic aircraft.— [Official Report, 12 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 495.]
Letter of correction from Harriett Baldwin:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence.
The correct response should have been:
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is right that we need to focus on the best equipment and getting the right capability for our armed forces. We will also always seek the best value for money for the taxpayer, but we will seek to get that UK content as strong as possible. The F-35 is an example. Fifteen per cent. of each of the 3,000 planes in the global programme are made at Samlesbury in the north-west, and the UK has been selected as the global hub for a large number of elements for the maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade of those fantastic aircraft.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(8 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
I am sorry to have given up time for that intervention, because I was coming to that point. SeaGen, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, was a research test bed, and it is being decommissioned now. It received a £10 million grant from the Department, and those conclusions are being carefully assessed. It is a project in which there has already been public investment.
[Official Report, 6 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 47WH.]
Letter of correction from Jesse Norman:
An error has been identified in a response I gave to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) during the Westminster Hall debate on tidal lagoons and UK energy strategy.
The correct response should have been:
Jesse Norman
I am sorry to have given up time for that intervention, because I was coming to that point. SeaGen, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, was a research test bed, and it is being decommissioned now. It received a £5.2 million grant from the Department, and those conclusions are being carefully assessed. It is a project in which there has already been public investment.
Observations
New national stroke strategy
Work and Pensions
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)
Wednesday 14th December 2016
(8 years 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 14 December 2016 - (14 Dec 2016)
The Chair
For the benefit of those Members who have been travelling overseas, who may not have noticed that the selection and grouping list has changed since the provisional version was circulated on Monday, revision two is available in the Committee Room this morning.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That in the Committee’s order of 23 November setting out the order in which the Bill be considered, leave out “Clauses 4 to 7, Clauses 10 to 13,” and insert “Clauses 4 to 6, Clauses 10 to 13, Clause 7”.
The purpose is to reorder consideration of the Bill, because we have discovered a technical problem with clause 7 that requires an amendment and we are awaiting clearance for that amendment before we can consider it in debate.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Chope. We do not oppose the variation, because it is important to get the drafting of the Bill accurate. I do however want to raise a concern. I am sure we are all capable of coping with taking clauses in any order, but, as we are now waiting on Government amendments in relation to clause 7 and, more importantly, clause 1, it would be useful to get an indication as to when those will be circulated. That is my first point.
Secondly, inevitably consideration will be stretched into the new year. I think there was probably an informal wish on both sides of the Committee that matters could be concluded before the recess but that clearly will not be possible. We have made our contribution to try to speed up the process in deeds rather than words by not moving several amendments and new clauses and either making those points more briefly in clause stand part debates that happen anyway, or by reserving the right to bring them back on Report.
I say that in the consensual spirit in which the Committee has largely proceeded thus far, but it would be helpful to get an idea of when the Bill’s promoter and the Government will be able to table the further amendments, whether we have some idea of when we might conclude, and whether it is in the mind of the promoter to schedule additional sittings—this is also a matter for you, Mr Chope—either before the recess next Tuesday, which is tight, or, if we are to sit on the morning of 11 January, later on that day or on another day that week. This event, as unfortunate as it may be, may focus our minds on those matters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
To reassure the hon. Member for Hammersmith, the amendment to clause 7 is due to an unforeseen situation in relation to its drafting. He is correct that we need to get the Bill right and therefore we have had to take some additional time to change the drafting. He is also correct that a final version of clause 1 is still outstanding. I expect that those proposed changes to the Bill should be drafted shortly and laid in order to enable us to debate them on 11 January. If that were to be the case, I expect them to be laid by the Christmas recess.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith for raising those issues. Clearly the amendments to clauses 1 and 7 are not available to us. I thank the Minister for clarifying when he expects to table them. We have proceeded thus far on a cross-party, consensual basis, and it is clearly our intention to continue to do so. There is no intention to rush things so that amendments do not receive proper consideration, particularly where they are detailed, as with clause 7. There is a more substantive amendment to clause 1 and we want everyone to be able to see and review it before we debate it.
My intention as the Bill’s promoter is that, depending on our progress this morning, we shall reconvene on the morning of 11 January. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith for not moving his amendments and new clauses, which should enable us to make speedier progress. If we are not able to conclude on the morning of 11 January, my intention would be to table a motion to bring us back on 18 January, including the afternoon if necessary, so that we would conclude on that date at the very latest. The Bill could then return to the Chamber on Report and hopefully Third Reading before being dispatched to the other place.
I appeal to Opposition Members: if there are amendments it is better for us to debate them here than for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. We can consider things in detail, from the perspective of detailed knowledge; otherwise there is the potential for delay and a risk that the Bill will be derailed in the Chamber. I trust that we can agree on the revised order of consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5
Duties owed to those who are homeless
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bob Blackman
Clause 5 inserts a new section into the Housing Act 1996 requiring a local authority to take reasonable steps to help resolve homelessness. That means that the local housing authority has to take reasonable steps to help an applicant to secure accommodation.
It is not easy to prescribe in legislation every single eventuality that might mean someone becomes homeless, or the details of the help that they might need. A reasonable step could be the provision of a rent deposit. It could be help with family mediation, if a family had broken up—a local authority adviser could help to mediate so that someone did not become homeless and could live with another relative. It could be discussion with a private sector landlord about extending a tenancy. The clause does not specify exact details but prescribes that the local authority should carry out reasonable steps.
The clause also extends the duty to provide help and support in the form of reasonable steps to any eligible household that is homeless. It extends the duty for 56 days. Clearly, if a household has a local connection to another district, in that time a referral can be made to it—we are not prescribing anything.
It is important to note that households in priority need will be placed in interim accommodation while the reasonable steps are carried out. Those not in priority need will not be provided with accommodation, but the clause requires authorities to take reasonable steps to help them to secure accommodation. That is an important part of the process. Clearly there will have to be triage of applicants when they arrive, to ensure that the local authority understands its duty and how it will deal with the individuals or family affected.
As with all provisions of the Bill, the steps that the local housing authority will take will be based on the assessment and the plan that is agreed with the applicant, or they will be any steps that the authority considers reasonable where no agreement can be reached. The duty can be brought to an end in a number of ways, which are set out in the clause and are similar to those in clause 4, relating to the prevention duty. In that case, I would point out that the duty can come to an end if the authority has taken reasonable steps to help to secure accommodation and the 56-day period of duty has ended. If the relief duty efforts have not been successful, households in priority need will move on to the next stage and may be owed the main homelessness duty. The new enhanced information and advice duty we discussed under clause 2 persists and may be of assistance to those who are not in priority need.
The duty can also end if the applicant has become homeless intentionally from any accommodation that the authority has made available. For example, if they refuse to pay rent that would be a reason. That also addresses the point of an applicant, as well as the local authority, acting in a reasonable fashion.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned intentional homelessness and the interplay in the clause. Will he spell out the position under this clause or elsewhere when a tenant refuses to pay in the example he just outlined? What responsibilities and duties if any will there still be on a local authority, should those circumstances come to pass?
Bob Blackman
The clear position is that, if relief efforts and reasonable steps in the plan have not been followed, the local authority can bring the duty to an end. That would still leave the applicant the opportunity of a review. For example, they might have agreed an action plan to accommodate them but not honoured their steps, or the local authority might not have honoured its steps. There can be a review at that point.
We need to be clear that there are duties on the applicant and the local authority. When people do not co-operate and behave unreasonably, it is not fair if others in desperate need and who are acting reasonably suffer—there will obviously be diminished efforts for them. Not paying the rent is a prime reason for someone to become intentionally homeless. That is a reasonable position to take.
Of course, an applicant might be entitled to benefits. Under those circumstances, if a local authority has not met the benefit requirements, it would be unreasonable to end the duty. That clearly has to be looked at on an individual basis.
Finally, it is up to the applicant if they wish to withdraw the application at any stage. I hope the duty would come to an end when a satisfactory position is achieved and the applicant has accommodation and is no longer homeless. With that, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andy Slaughter
Alongside clause 4, clause 5 is a major part of the Bill and a major departure from current practice. We should all be aware when discussing the clause that it proposes a significant change to how homelessness legislation works.
We welcome both the 56-day period of assistance by local authorities to those who are not in priority need, and the requirement for six months with a possible extension to 12 months. I note that Shelter wishes to see a 12-month period, and we will see the Government’s response to that. We clearly do not want a yo-yo situation with people going into short-term accommodation and coming back. That will not be helpful either to that person or to the local authority, and 12 months might be a more appropriate period.
As I said, we welcome the measure although we do not underestimate the sea change. Let me highlight our concerns. First, will there be a knock-on effect from non-priority homeless to priority homeless? Local authorities, particularly those under heavy stress such as London boroughs and other metropolitan authorities, are finding it almost impossible to cope with the demands put on them by priority homeless cases. In theory, perhaps there should be no overlap. There has been a significant change since the first draft of the Bill, which I will come to in a moment, which means that the duty owed to non-priority homeless is very different from that owed to those in a priority situation.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend saw the report from the chief executive of Birmingham City Council on the news this week. He made specific reference to cuts to homelessness prevention expenditure, which he directly linked to the quadrupling of rough sleeping in the city of Birmingham. Does that in any way shape my hon. Friend’s view of the resource requirements?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We will debate homelessness in the main Chamber later today. I raised the example of social care not only because it is another example, and perhaps the clearest example, of the pressures on local authority finance, but because these matters are linked, and the Government need to look at them in a linked-up way. I note that the Government pray in aid the Bill in their amendment to the Opposition motion. That is all very well, but it works only if there is a joined-up and funded response to the pressures local government is under in terms of social care, supported housing, rough sleeping and homelessness legislation.
Michael Tomlinson
Like the hon. Gentleman, I encouraged the Minister to spell out where the money is coming from during our first sitting. The hon. Gentleman also recognised in his opening speech to the Committee that this is not only about the human cost, and that there is potentially a cost saving through the measures. If the Bill works—we sincerely hope it does, which is why we are here—there will be a long-term cost saving. The hon. Gentleman has recognised that potential, but does he still?
Andy Slaughter
I recognise that more in relation to the duty on prevention, but I do not want to go back to the debate we had last week. We are now talking about measures local authorities will have to take to secure accommodation. It is ironic hearing that from Government Members: every time the Opposition have mentioned the idea of investing to save—we argued for investing in housing advice services to prevent homelessness, and argued against cuts to legal aid—we have received a dusty answer. I will be glad if the hon. Gentleman is a convert. There will be costs up front even if there are savings down the line—people will be less reliant on services when they are properly housed, or indeed when homelessness is prevented. The key is that there will be substantive up-front costs.
What stands behind the Bill even more than the funding of local authorities in their discharge of the process is the fact that most local housing authorities, and particularly those in high-stress areas, are not in a benign climate. We are not in a climate in which chief executives and council leaders can sit down and say, “The law’s changed. We’d better now implement this. When people come into our homeless persons unit, we need to take it much more seriously and treat them not only with compassion but with efficiency. We need to secure them accommodation to the best of our ability.” Unfortunately, as a direct consequence of Government policy over the past six years, we are in the most hostile climate to those ambitions being achieved. That is true in relation to finance, the now reduced benefit cap, the bedroom tax and the freeze on local housing allowance.
It is also true of the private rented sector. The Government and the Housing and Planning Minister restated that only last week or the week before. The sector appears to be implacably opposed to longer tenancies, which we wish to see, and as part of that contractual change, to controls on rent increases. As we know, the serving of section 21 notices is currently the single greatest cause of homelessness. About 30% of people turning up at local authorities homeless are there because a section 21 notice has been served. At least part of that could be resolved by reform of that process.
On the other side, we are at a 24-year low in terms of the building of social housing. We know that the Government still, for the time being—I hope they see sense on this as they have in relation to other measures in the Housing and Planning Act 2016—intend to pursue not only the sale of housing association properties but the funding of that by the sale of high-value local authority properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North will correct me if I am wrong, but I think in her authority that means that the vast majority of council homes would have to be sold over a period because they are of high value. That is true of about 50% of the homes in my borough.
How can we realistically say we want local authorities to take on a major extension of their duties in relation to the provision of housing? One way they could do it, which I believe has been done in Welsh authorities—we see that as a template for the Bill in many ways—is by the use of authorities’ own accommodation. Stresses on social housing in Wales are much less than they are in London and other places. If the Government are not building social homes and actively encouraging or enforcing their sale, how on earth will the objective of the clause be discharged?
Michael Tomlinson
We started off in Committee with cross-party consensus that we want change—consensus has been the basis of many of the Bill Committees I have sat on, but particularly this one. However, for the last two or three minutes, the hon. Gentleman has made party political points about the past six years. I hear those points, and we will come back to section 21 arguments when we look at new clause 1. Does he not recognise the good intentions of not only the Bill’s promoter but the Government in backing clause 5?
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman and I have not had the pleasure of serving on the same Committee before, so he will not recognise that I am pulling my punches considerably and have engaged consensus mode for the duration. The Bill’s promoter recognises that because we have been in this position many times before. Yes, my points are party political to the extent that his Government have got so much wrong in the provision of housing supply, particularly for people who need social housing and genuinely affordable housing. That must be addressed, but I have tried to put that in non-party political terms as a fact.
I have gone through, in a short period, a long list of issues that I believe are compounding the housing crisis at the bottom end. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to get up and gainsay that—he might have some other points to make in a sparring way. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is correct that there is not a great deal of point in getting into a long tennis match in Committee, but I want to put on record that we cannot pass the Bill with our eyes closed and say, “Once it exists as statute, everything will be resolved.”
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to restrain himself to consensus mode as far as possible, and that he wants to avoid going into issues for later debates and stand part debates. However, although he gave a poke if not a punch to the Government’s record, the autumn statement takes us in the right direction—it included the housing deal for more than £1 billion with the Mayor of London, providing flexibility of tenure and 2,000 accommodation places for those with complex needs. Those are the people who are particularly affected and who we are concerned about. As part of a wider package, that will help to provide the resources to fulfil the duties in the clause.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Member for Hammersmith answers that, I think we are in danger of getting away from the specifics of the clause.
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful, Mr Chope. I was about to conclude my remarks. I note in response to the hon. Gentleman only that, if he is inviting me to congratulate the Mayor of London on making an excellent start in his housing policies, I reluctantly join him in doing so.
I do not know how much detail the Minister wants to give in responding, but I would like some acknowledgment not only that he will get the financing of local authorities right in the execution of the Bill, but that something must happen in relation to housing supply. I note what London Councils sent to us for the debate. The estimated spend by London boroughs on temporary accommodation alone in 2014-15 was £633 million, of which £170 million was met from boroughs’ own funds.
Responses have alluded to this, but I would welcome confirmation from the Government that, following the changes from the original draft, nothing in the Bill will require local authorities to provide accommodation, and rather that they will be required only to assist. As the Minister will understand, that is of huge concern to local authorities, because a requirement to provide would take the burdens under the Bill from being onerous to insuperable. I believe the Government recognise that in the changes. We would all wish for people who are not priority homeless to be able to access good quality social housing, as may have been available in previous generations, but there is a social housing crisis in this country and it is not available.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
I strongly believe that early intervention is essential in preventing homelessness and minimising all the stress and trauma that goes with it. However, we have all seen situations whereby people have come to local authorities, presenting themselves as homeless, and it is incredibly frustrating when they are seen as in non-priority need. In the eyes of many people they are homeless, and they require action from the local authority, which is not forthcoming. It is frustrating for Members of Parliament when we see that and get involved.
Michael Tomlinson
Perhaps you will permit me, Mr Chope, before I comment on clause 5, to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, who, through the Clerk to the Bill Committee, made Daisy-May Hudson’s film available to all of us who do not sit on that Committee. It was both compelling and difficult to watch, and it was illuminating for those of us who had not seen it before.
I suppose that we all sincerely hope that if clause 4 is successful in its aim of preventing homelessness, when there is a threat of it, clause 5 will not be needed, but I agree that it is none the less an important clause. I should welcome some clarity from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the sort of reasonable steps that are to be expected of local authorities.
As to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about local authorities, I agree that they work hard and that, certainly going by my experience in Dorset—in Poole, East Dorset, and Purbeck—they are struggling with resources. I should welcome clarity on the matter of reasonable steps, although my hon. Friend suggested a few. I understand—and you know this better than any of us, Mr Chope—that it is not desirable to set out in a Bill each and every reasonable step, and that guidance may be anticipated in due course, but it would still be helpful for the Committee to understand in more detail what the reasonable steps would be.
I am sure that that clarity will be forthcoming, and in view of that I warmly support the clause.
Mr Jones
The Government support clause 5, which introduces a new duty to households that are homeless, known as the relief duty. It requires the local housing authority to take reasonable steps to help to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless household.
Like the new prevention duty, the relief duty extends help and support to a wider range of households. It applies to all, regardless of priority need and intentionality, and provides 56 days of help and support. It provides an additional safety net for those households for which homelessness prevention activity has not been successful. It also provides additional help for households that have sought help at a later stage.
The type of help that they receive will be based on the information identified during the assessment process, which I talked about when we discussed clause 3. The authority and the applicant would identify the reasonable steps that the applicant would take, through that process. For example, if the main issue is that a household member has left home after a relatively minor disagreement with their family and that is the only cause of their homelessness, the local authority can provide mediation to try to reunite the household. I think that is the type of example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was looking for.
Households in priority need, for example those with dependent children or vulnerable for some reason, will be provided with interim accommodation for the duration of the duty. They will be placed in interim accommodation as there is an expectation that the relief duty will be successful and they might be required to move to new settled accommodation at short notice. Less time spent in interim accommodation will mean less uncertainty for the household, so they can start rebuilding their lives more quickly.
Like the prevention duty, the relief duty can come to an end in a number of different ways. Again, it might be helpful if I set out some of the most important. The way we envisage it will be most frequently ended is through help to secure accommodation. If the authority is satisfied that the applicant has suitable accommodation and there is a reasonable prospect of their retaining it for at least six months, the duty will come to an end.
The duty can also come to an end if the local authority has taken reasonable steps for a period of 56 days but those steps have not relieved homelessness. In that case, the advice and information duty persists and those in priority need can move to the main homelessness duty.
Ms Buck
A frequent cause of homelessness that I see is young people living in severely overcrowded accommodation with their parents and families. If a young person approaches a local authority, does the Minister consider it would be reasonable for the local authority to require that person to return to a home that is by any reasonable measure overcrowded?
Mr Jones
I would say that the local authority would have to look at the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. I would make another point to the hon. Lady. I know that she would have supported the spare-room subsidy for people in private rented accommodation but she does not support the principle of the spare-room subsidy for people in social housing. However, that policy is freeing up accommodation that will support larger families of the type she describes.
Mr Jones
That is something the hon. Lady needs to speak to her local authority about. I would need to see more details to comment further on that.
Both the prevention and relief duties, in conjunction with clauses 3 and 7, place an element of responsibility on the households themselves. They will be required to take their own reasonable steps to assist the relief of their homelessness. Requiring co-operation in that way means that, if an applicant deliberately or unreasonably refuses to co-operate, the duty can come to end. How that will work will be explained when we discuss clause 7.
A crucial difference between the prevention duty and the relief duty is that authorities may determine whether an applicant has a local connection with their district. If it is demonstrated that an applicant has a local connection with another district, a referral can take place. A relief duty provides another level of support and assistance for those households not in priority need that have become homeless. It is an important addition to the safety net and I welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
I will respond to some of the other issues raised. Taking your guidance, Mr Chope, I will not go as wide as some of those points. I see that I am receiving your endorsement to that approach, and I will try to follow that advice.
With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith on funding, he will not be surprised to hear me say again that the Bill will be funded. We are dealing with and speaking carefully to the Local Government Association and local authorities to make sure that we get the funding right. He will also note that there is a long-standing new burdens doctrine that we have to follow in that regard. I entirely accept what he says about this burden not being a situation that a local authority currently has to bear as such, and we are therefore approaching the funding to it on that basis. However, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, although this is not a duty that generally exists at the moment, there will ultimately be benefits to local authorities upstream, in terms of savings that can be made further down the line.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned temporary accommodation. I know that is an important issue in London. As he will know, we are devolving the temporary accommodation management fee, which will give local authorities a far better way to plan for temporary accommodation. I can also say to him that I have been disturbed by some of the stories I have heard about the approach that has been taken to securing temporary accommodation, in which local authorities have effectively been outbidding each other in certain cases. That is a real cause for concern, and I am trying to instigate work with London Councils to try to overcome that particular issue.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned tenancy length. The average length of an assured shorthold tenancy is actually four years, but I understand what he says about 12-month tenancies. I discussed that at considerable length with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and we came to the conclusion that, if we try to be too prescriptive on 12-month tenancies, it would cause a particularly difficult issue in places such as London, where a lot of landlords may not be willing to grant an assured shorthold tenancy for that length of time. However, what we are doing here does not preclude granting 12-month assured shorthold tenancies. We are trying to encourage landlords to engage with us and to take up the model tenancy agreement, which advocates a longer length of tenancy.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It may be the case that the average length of actual tenancy turns out to be four years. However, does the Minister accept that, within those four years, if the specified length of tenancy is one year, those tenants are nevertheless living with a lack of security and the uncertainty that the landlord could, if they choose, evict that tenant at will or bring the tenancy to an end? That lack of security is the issue as much as what happens in practice in terms of the average length of tenancy.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady may be leading me down a road that makes me incur the wrath of the Chairman. There is certainly a balance to be struck between people having certainty and people having somewhere to live. The challenge is, if we try to mandate very long tenancies on private landlords, we may soon find that we do not have the supply of private rented accommodation that we need.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I am a former property lawyer, and I know the Minister also has considerable experience in this field. He will know that the stumbling block here is in fact the Council of Mortgage Lenders and insurers, which say that a tenancy of more than one year is not permissible in case the mortgage holder defaults and they need therefore to sell the property as quickly as possible to recover their losses. It is actually those two different groups that prohibit leases or assured shorthold tenancies of more than one year.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend has considerable experience in this area and is absolutely right. That was one of the challenges for residential landlords, particularly buy-to-let landlords, who are restricted by the terms of a particular mortgage product they take. Mandating landlords to take a longer tenancy than either a mortgage lender or an insurance company may desire would cause a significant conflict and might mean that tenants are not able to secure a tenancy.
David Mackintosh
At the outset of the Bill, we said that in terms of helping homeless people some issues can be dealt with, but others may have to be dealt with separately. There is a housing White Paper coming later this year.
Mr Jones
The housing White Paper will address many of the issues regarding supply. My hon. Friend gives me a good segue to bring my comments to an end. The relief duty will bring another level of support and assistance for households not in priority need. He is right that the Bill is an extremely important part of dealing with some of the challenges we have, but it will not be a panacea so it would probably be best if we spent more time debating the substantive clauses.
Michael Tomlinson
This is an important point. In relation to this clause, the Minister spelled out the importance of flexibility and the interplay between six-month and 12-month tenancies. Will he explain and persuade the Committee of the evidence for that? I hear the arguments from both sides of the Committee about the importance of security, but will he spell out the evidence on six-month tenancies? I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, but this is a crucial point.
Mr Jones
I think we all recognise that the ideal situation would be to have 12-month tenancies for the people we are discussing. Often they are in a very difficult position, and that additional certainty may well be very helpful to them. We also have to acknowledge that there are a number of barriers to that. I am not saying that in future we may not get to the promised land in this sense, but we have to be realistic about the current situation.
While we are talking about six-month tenancies, the measure does not preclude 12-month tenancies. As I said earlier, we are speaking to landlord groups and other stakeholders to agree things such as model tenancy agreements, so that we can get to a position where all parties come to the conclusion that 12-month tenancies are more desirable than six-month ones.
Ms Buck
I am grateful. Does the Minister share my dismay at the explosion in the use of nightly booked accommodation for homeless households? Does he accept that particularly for vulnerable people or families with children, not knowing where they will be from one day to the next is a huge problem? Will he act to stop it?
Mr Jones
Again, we are going slightly awry here, but we have been concerned about that. That is why we are doing a huge amount of work to put local authorities in a better position to secure temporary accommodation and plan for the future. I completely agree with the hon. Lady that the practice she mentions is not desirable or one we endorse.
Bob Blackman
We have had a wide-ranging debate on this clause. I will answer some of the points raised.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith raised important issues such as the knock-on effects for priority need households of extending the duty to single homeless and others who previously did not come under it. That is an important aspect of the Bill and one of the reasons why there will be funding for it under the new burdens doctrine. We look forward to the Minister announcing the extent of that funding soon—that is parlance that I have heard from colleagues across the House. This is clearly an issue, and we do not want to get to a position where priority need households are disadvantaged at all as a result of these new measures.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the 24-year low in building social rented accommodation. To correct my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, I think we can all say that the Government’s record-breaking £3.15 billion settlement with London for it to build 90,000 affordable homes is a great start to the process. The provision of housing goes beyond the scope of the Bill, but it is of course part and parcel of the whole process. If we give local authorities duties to help and advise and provide accommodation, we need that accommodation. Forgive me, Mr Chope, but I recall the hon. Member for Hammersmith opposing tooth and nail the Transport for London Bill, which I took through, and provided for TfL to supply affordable housing across London. I am sure he regrets that opposition now that his colleague the new Mayor of London can implement that wide-ranging and far-sighted proposal, which I had the honour of making.
Andy Slaughter
I do not want to test your patience, Mr Chope, but the issue with the Transport for London Bill was that TfL was building out schemes with no additional social housing and virtually no affordable housing. I am delighted to say that under new management, it is a reformed character.
Bob Blackman
The issue, of course, was giving TfL the power to develop housing; the political control of the delivery of that is up to politicians. You will be delighted to know that I will not be diverted any further, Mr Chope.
The other important point that the hon. Member for Hammersmith raised was that in the original draft Bill, there was provision for emergency accommodation for non-priority households. That would clearly be an extreme extra burden on local authorities. In our discussions before we produced the final version of the Bill that was introduced, I reluctantly agreed that we should remove that provision on the basis that it would produce major costs for local authorities, particularly in London. That is not to say that I would not like that provision to be in the Bill—I would. It would clearly be an extremely important contribution, but it would be very expensive, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been removed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South raised the important issue of applicants’ frustration. I went out last night with St Mungo’s night patrol to identify homeless people on the streets of the City of London and help its clients. One of the volunteers made clear that he was a non-priority individual. He had gone to his local authority, which had just said, “Sorry, nothing to do with us.” He was very proactive, but had he got the help and advice that he needed up front, he would not have become homeless. That is exactly what we are attempting to achieve with the Bill; as we have said, we have to change the culture set by changing the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of reasonable steps, which I trust the Minister’s answers have set out. It is difficult to prescribe those in legislation. We have to rely on a local authority understanding its duties and ensuring that it delivers them in a reasonable manner. To prescribe all those steps would be too prescriptive and would prevent local authorities from trying new ways of delivery.
Michael Tomlinson
I agree. I am not advocating that my hon. Friend spells out each and every circumstance in clause 5. If I were, I would have tabled my own amendment and proposed it to the Committee. However, I welcome what my hon. Friend and the Minister have said, because it is helpful for the Committee to have discussed and fleshed out some of the options that local authorities will have, so that they themselves can take them on board or innovate as my hon. Friend says.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, what has been referred to is a way forward for us.
The Minister has clarified many of the issues that colleagues have raised. One that has come up in many interventions is six-month versus 12-month tenancies. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I also served on the Communities and Local Government Committee in the previous Parliament. It produced an excellent report—I would say that, because I was part of it—which recommended that tenancies be extended. I strongly support longer tenancies for people in the private rented sector. Such provision provides security of accommodation and of tenure. In my view, it should not be a question of six or 12 months; tenancies should be even longer. Why not have three-year tenancies? We have to solve the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made the point about mortgage lenders and other individuals who are involved having to come to terms with what has been suggested Actually, we need another change in the law. I crave your indulgence, Mr Chope. That is something else that needs to be acted on in law, but it is not within the scope of this Bill. What is within its scope is the issue of a local authority trying to house a family or single individuals who are homeless and securing accommodation for them.
We have discussed the matter in detail, and it is clear that if we stuck with a 12-month tenancy, the problem would be lack of supply. It is better to prescribe a minimum of six months, which hopefully could be extended to 12 months to prevent someone from going through a regular cycle of having a six-month tenancy, returning to the local authority, getting another six-month tenancy and so on. I am talking about a cycle of homelessness—the insecurity of people moving on and on and on in an unfair manner. I have explained where we would like to be. As I said, I would prefer to be in a position whereby we could prescribe even longer tenancies. That would be much better for families and for individuals.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The length of tenancies certainly needs to be considered, but does he agree that every action has consequences and we must ensure that any legislative change that we bring in—I am thinking of changes that mean additional risk for members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and for insurers—does not end up pushing up the mortgage payments and insurance premiums of all the people in the country who have mortgages and insurance?
Bob Blackman
Clearly that is a consideration, but perhaps for another Bill and another day. It is certainly not within the scope of this clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred to the housing White Paper. If it is to be released later this year, it will not be long before we receive it. However, I am sure that what the Minister meant was “soon” in parliamentary parlance. That is an important part of this process. The housing White Paper, I trust, will build on the good work that we are doing with this Bill to ensure that we have the accommodation that goes with the duties. I hope that the Committee approves clause 5.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Duties to help to secure accommodation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bob Blackman
This relatively brief clause was introduced to add clarity and assist with the efficient functioning of the homelessness prevention and relief duties. It ensures that the requirements that the housing authority must meet when it secures accommodation itself do not apply when it takes steps to help an applicant to secure accommodation. This is about efficiency and providing flexibility to applicants.
This short clause is particularly important for a number of reasons. Let us consider a typical scenario: a household has been unable to find accommodation because it cannot afford the rent deposit. That is often a problem, particularly in areas of London. The household approaches the local authority, which assesses its situation and sees that the single barrier is the deposit. The reasonable step is for the authority to provide that deposit.
Michael Tomlinson
I was scratching my head when I first read the clause—perhaps it was too late at night. My hon. Friend said that, although the clause is short, it is none the less important. I looked again at section 205 in part 7 of the 1996 Act to ensure that I was reading it correctly. If what I am told is right, the clause will help single homeless people in particular; we often meet them in our surgeries and they are more likely to be street homeless, as is the case in Poole. However, I cannot fathom out how on earth the clause helps that category of people. Have I misunderstood? Will my hon. Friend enlighten me?
Bob Blackman
Let me try to enlighten my hon. Friend. The aim, as I have explained, is to provide flexibility so that if a household is able to secure its own accommodation—this might be part of a plan that has been put together—it can do so and then return to the local authority if, for example, the deposit is an issue. The local authority can then say, “Fine. We can deal with the deposit. Thank you very much. Off you go.” For someone who is more vulnerable and requires the local authority to identify housing for them, clearly that is a different issue, because they will need more help and advice. The local authority will then secure accommodation for the individuals affected.
The clause aims to ensure that local housing authorities have the flexibility they need and that applicants can secure accommodation and then return to the local authority and say, “We have found somewhere.” The local authority cannot then turn around and say, “We don’t want you to go there; we want you to go here.” The clause provides flexibility ultimately to protect the applicants, which is key. It will also help the local authority to avoid potential conflict when applicants are, not unreasonably, acting to help themselves. We do not want people to sit back and wait for the local authority to do it for them; we want them to get on, do it for themselves and get help and advice from the local authority. That is what we want the Bill to achieve.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that the measures are about empowering those who find themselves in that position? I suggest that they do not want to appear as victims reliant on state handouts. They want empowerment to get their lives back in order. If they are making those decisions, that will be best for all involved.
Bob Blackman
During the Select Committee inquiry, several witnesses made clear that they were happy to approach the local authority to get help and advice and then take action. The problem that they experienced at first was not getting the help and advice from the local authority. Many individuals were homeless for the first time and were shocked at not knowing what to do and how to do it. If the local authority were to act as a one-stop shop and point them in the right direction, they would be perfectly able to secure accommodation. They just want that extra assistance. We do not want to bind the hands of people who are perfectly capable of looking after themselves but just need that extra help and advice, given that they face a major crisis in their lives.
Mr Jones
In an area with high demand where properties are snapped up quickly, a family might want to move to a certain property. If they have to go back to the local authority for it to inspect the property, that would cause delay and the property might be taken by somebody else in the interim. Is that not the type of situation we are trying to avoid?
Bob Blackman
Indeed. We will come later to the duty of the local authority to inspect properties. This is a sensible change that would mean that local authorities could work much more efficiently and households would have more choice over where they live. That is often a key demand. In our surgeries, people often say that local authorities are making offers of properties in completely unreasonable locations. This measure would give applicants far more control over their future lives. I trust that we can agree to the clause and move on.
Andy Slaughter
I was not going to speak to the clause, but I will do so briefly because the debate has taken a slightly surreal turn. My reading of the clause is exactly the opposite of that of the hon. Gentleman.
The picture painted by some of the interventions is that non-priority homeless people are taking their pick of attractive properties in the area and may be competing with others or people who are not in the same market, and that local authorities might intervene with some bureaucratic procedure to stop them doing that.
My reading of the clause is that if somebody goes to a local authority with a duty under clause 5, it is much less restricted in how it can discharge that duty than would be the case for priority homeless people. That is why Shelter has asked for it to be made clear that this should be suitable accommodation under the 2012 homelessness regulations.
It would be wrong of me to oppose the clause. As I said in my remarks on clause 5, the onerous additional burdens placed on local authorities are likely to lead to their duty towards priority homeless people being subverted by the new duties. However, we should go into these matters with our eyes open. It will not be the applicant but the local authority that will be given a greater degree of flexibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct that this will be less bureaucratic and more effective, but to paint a picture that it somehow gives the keys to the housing market to those who come to local authorities with such a degree of need is, at best, wishful thinking.
Mr Jones
Clause 6 adds clarity to the homelessness prevention and relief duties. It ensures that the requirements that a local housing authority must meet when securing accommodation for applicants itself do not apply when it takes steps to help to secure accommodation. That common sense change means that authorities can work more efficiently and can direct resources to where they are needed most, and that households get the help they need while retaining their ability to make their own choices about where they live. The Government are therefore happy to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Duty of public authority to refer cases to local housing authority
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 10, page 16, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the specified public authority makes a notification to the local housing authority the public authority must cooperate with the housing authority in meeting its duties under sections 179, 189A, 195, 189B and 199A of the Housing Act 1996.”.
This amendment would ensure that where a public authority made a referral to a housing authority in respect of a person who is or may become homeless the public authority is under a duty to cooperate with the housing authority.
The amendment is very much in the spirit of clause 10, but it goes a bit further. This was an important matter when the Select Committee held its first inquiry into homelessness and produced its first report. Indeed, chapter 7 of our report was on cross-Government working—we might have called it “lack of cross-Government working,” given the evidence from various witnesses. In the chapter’s introduction we quoted the words of Howard Sinclair, the chief executive of St Mungo’s, who said that “Homelessness is everyone’s issue”. From the evidence we heard, the Select Committee decided that all Departments need to contribute to ending homelessness.
Jon Sparkes of Crisis said
“there is very little evidence that the influence of DCLG is spreading to the other Departments.”
The Minister looks a little hurt, but he should not. We are trying to help him in the battle he has to wage with his colleagues in other Departments. We want him to have meetings with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, who have produced proposals such as changing the supported accommodation allowances without any thought to what will actually happen to the accommodation provided for homeless people. That is not DCLG’s fault. As far as I know, DCLG was not even consulted. It is important for there to be genuine understanding of the actions of other Departments, such as the DWP or the Department of Health. We all know that homeless people often have mental health problems—mental health problems can cause homelessness, and homelessness can cause mental health problems—so co-operation with the Department of Health and all the various health organisations is essential.
As it stands, clause 10 is a good proposal. Authorities should be advised to contact the relevant housing authority when they recognise that a person with whom they are in contact is homeless or threatened with homelessness, which is an entirely reasonable starting point. The problem is that it is a bit like, “We have passed it over to you; it’s your problem now.” That is the exact opposite of what the Select Committee was trying to say in its report. It is not about saying, “We have identified that this person may be at risk of homelessness. Get on with it, housing authority. You will sort it out now. There is nothing else to it. It is simply a homelessness issue.” We stated very clearly that, right the way through, there has to be cross-Government working and a clear indication that that is going to happen.
My amendment therefore sets out the responsibility in a simple way. It might not go far enough, and I accept the criticism that it is too weak in its emphasis on what more can be done. All the amendment says is that an authority that passes on to a housing authority concerns about an individual who is homeless or threatened with homelessness has a duty to co-operate with the housing authority on meeting its duties. That seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition, and one that I hope we will all support.
I know the Minister’s colleagues in other Departments have to agree to any new burdens placed on them and that local authorities just have new burdens given to them; other Government Departments seem to have a say on what gets passed on to them. It seems to me entirely reasonable, and not an exceptional request, to say that while it is good that a public authority has to notify a housing authority when it comes across somebody who is homeless or who is threated with homelessness, should we not ask for that little bit more—that that public authority co-operates?
Andy Slaughter
I support the amendment standing in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee. I had a similar amendment on the duty to co-operate between public bodies and local authorities, which I have not tabled. Both amendments would effectively have done the same thing.
Co-operation is important, but it runs both ways. As the Chair of the Select Committee has indicated, it is important because local authorities cannot achieve the objectives of the Bill on their own. Let me give an example that I came across last Friday: I spent the morning visiting the in-patient mental health unit in my constituency, where I was told that about a third of the beds there are occupied by people who are ready for discharge but have nowhere to go. In many cases those people will be referred to the local authority. The answer to the question of whether that is new is yes, it is relatively new.
I am not criticising local authorities, but the problem is that whereas they might have previously taken something on trust or accepted that they had a prima facie duty for it, they will now be much more scrupulous or detailed in looking at whether that duty is owed simply because of the demand on their services. They will do that across the board, even when dealing with other public authorities. The net effect will simply be to shift the burden from one part of the public sector to another, with the consequence that people either might not get the best care or might prevent others from getting the care that they need.
Accepting the amendment is absolutely crucial to the proper functioning of the Bill. One would hope that the public sector works in a joined-up way, and that Departments work in a joined-up way, but that is not always the case, so we would do well to give any encouragement to that.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I welcome the intention and principle behind it, particularly because it flows into clause 10; it is just seeing how far it will bite. I particularly welcome the principle of joined-up services—we sometimes get sick of talking about joined-up Government, and it often does not mean that—when dealing with the concerns at the heart of clause 10, which is about trying to ensure that there is better co-ordination and co-operation.
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I make particular reference to complex needs and to those people facing multiple disadvantage, and to the need to ensure that there is real co-operation. The litmus test of clause 10 is the implications of referrals for those with the most need and facing the most disadvantage. There is a particular impact on health: almost twice as many who use homeless services have long-term physical health problems and mental health diagnoses compared with the general public, and the average age of people who die while homeless is 47, which is scandalous.
That particularly comes into play when dealing with those who come into contact with health services in one form or another. Not least, homeless people might struggle to register with a GP because of not having a permanent address. A vicious cycle goes on where they end up in crisis management and in A&E. It is then a further scandal when the intervention that needs to take place at that stage does not. At the heart of the Bill is the fact that early intervention and preventive duties should not just stem from when people come into contact with the housing department. When they are in contact with the health services, and not least when they end up at A&E, that should lead to an intervention and referral, which leads to the co-operation that we want.
St Mungo’s has been on this case for a long time and has drawn attention to it with the “Homeless Health Matters” campaign. Before the Bill, it sought to have a charter that local authorities signed up to so that co-operation happened on an informal level. I believe that clause 10 takes things a huge step further as regards the statutory duty on referrals. The issue is how much further it explicitly needs to go with a mandatory requirement to co-operate across departments.
I also support the principle behind the amendment because, in many ways, it is already happening across Government—regardless of the cynicism that is around. One only has to look at the issue of violence against women and girls, which is a concern that we all share. If one looks at the national statement of expectations published on 7 December, one sees that it is all about co-operation. That comes from the Home Office and has a welcome two-year fund for refuges and other forms of accommodation. There is also all the extra investment in social impact bonds, in which co-operation is very much inbuilt. There are those with complex needs and the multi-agency approach that is used, although often not well enough. Sometimes these things are based around funding streams, and we need to see that happening across the country. The question is whether the duty to refer will help to ensure that good practice does happen across the country.
To home in on women—who are, sadly, some of the most vulnerable and face complex needs—the national statement of expectations from 7 December says:
“To deliver this, commissioners should…consider whether an individual may have complex needs or suffer from multiple disadvantage and, if so, the services in place to manage these…Commissioners should consider how these detect and respond to women’s experiences”
of violence, and ensure that there are services for them. That has come from the Home Office but plainly interacts across all Departments, and there is that expectation that it be delivered. At the end, the statement talks about how local authority, housing and homelessness policies must take account of sexual violence. That is included in the Bill in relation to the duties on advisory services; it is welcome that domestic violence is included, not least because of the work of the Select Committee.
The question is whether the Bill needs to go further in terms of a mandatory requirement for co-operation, or whether this referral will supplement and complement what is now happening to a much greater extent across Government. There is greater recognition and understanding of complex needs. Many of us have talked over the years about multi-agency approaches and joined-up government until we were blue in the face, but sadly these most vulnerable people are not getting what they need and deserve.
My view, which has been a common thread in discussions on the Bill, is that we need to balance doing what we can to ensure that this is a groundbreaking Bill—as I believe it is—that will help to provide greater support, preventive work and co-operation with whether this amendment will provide additional burdens across Government and have unintended consequences. Although it may provide a mandatory requirement—that, in many ways, is already the intention across Government—it might lead to additional financial burdens, which might lead to additional bureaucracy that might get in the way of the local co-operation between services that we want delivered on the ground. I am not convinced. If there is a proper fulfilment of the duty to refer, which may be wrapped up in guidance, having a mandatory co-operation requirement may provide additional undue financial burdens across Government and create bureaucracy that might, sadly, get in the way of what we want to do, which is to co-operate across services.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Sovereign Wealth Fund
(8 years 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
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK Sovereign Wealth Fund.
It is good to have you looking after us this morning, Mr Owen. The title and subject of this debate come from a proposal I published recently, with help from the good people at the Social Market Foundation, called “The Great Rebalancing: A sovereign wealth fund to make the UK’s economy the strongest in the G20”. It is available in all good book stores; failing that, the Library refers to it in a good deal of detail in its excellent debate briefing note. For anyone who is sufficiently riveted to want more details, it is available on my website with a slightly pithier summary alongside it, written for The Times’s “Red Box” column.
The reason for writing the proposal was simple. This is a crucial moment for Britain. Brexit creates an inflection point—an opportunity to ask ourselves fundamental questions for the first time in many years about what kind of country we want to be once we leave the European Union. How can we best use the spur of our newly won freedoms to change the way our country works? What do we want our economy, our society, our cities and our countryside to look like? “The Great Rebalancing” is an attempt to answer at least some of those questions.
For years, economists of all kinds, of left and right, have said rightly that Britain is worse at long-term planning than other countries. We save less, invest less and build less economically vital growth-promoting infrastructure, such as roads, railways and ports, than they do. Other oil-rich countries such as Norway have built up large sovereign wealth funds, but we have not. We have a rock ’n’ roll economy that lives for today and depends too much on consumer demand, unlike more sobersided countries such as Germany, which are much better at investing for tomorrow.
The result is that we lag behind the United States, Germany, France and even Italy in productivity. It takes a German worker four days to produce what we Brits make in five, so we work longer hours for lower pay than other countries, and we will not be able to raise our living standards sustainably or to build an economy that works for everyone unless we fix that fundamental underlying issue.
Even worse, we have huge national debt, partly as a hangover from the 2008 financial crisis, but mainly because the promises we have made in our pay-as-you-go pensions and benefits system create long-term liabilities that are, financially, effectively the same as debt. That is not fair to our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay the money we have borrowed. We are handing them the bills for our lifestyle, rather than paying for it ourselves. These are long-term structural problems that are deeply ingrained in our economy and in our politics. They have taken decades to build up, and they will take just as long to solve.
Part of the answer is to invest more in crucial economic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways and ports, and to keep doing it consistently and predictably. To my mind, the most important and least noticed bit of the Chancellor’s autumn statement was not the £23 billion investment pledge for innovation and infrastructure, although that was certainly welcome and valuable. It was the instruction to the National Infrastructure Commission to plan for a future where, every year, we spend between 1% and 1.2% of GDP on this stuff, rather than 0.8%, as we do today. That is not a one-off; it is a permanent change that he proposes. It stops the infrastructure boom and bust that we have suffered for decades, in which Governments postpone critical growth-promoting projects whenever money gets tight. Making our investments boringly predictable really matters, because stop-start spending does not only delay growth; if there is not a smooth pipeline of projects, taxpayers get less value for money, and we cannot build as much with the money we have.
But what about that huge national debt? How do we make things fair for our children and grandchildren? First, we have to stop adding to the debt, which means stopping borrowing. The autumn statement said the deficit will be down to 2% by 2020, cyclically adjusted across the business cycle, which is a vital step in the right direction. My proposal goes one step further and asks for an annual public declaration by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to ensure the Government’s budget stays balanced across the economic cycle in future. That is a small but crucial piece of fiscal rule making.
We gave the OBR responsibility for the financial forecasts to stop Chancellors using fairytale projections to cover up problems when they were under pressure. Once we have finally balanced the budget, sometime during the next Parliament, we should extend that same mechanism a little further, to shine a harsh and unforgiving spotlight on any future Chancellor who is not prepared to live within the country’s means. We have not, after all, endured years of austerity and belt-tightening just to have a future financially irresponsible Chancellor toss it all away.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman envisage a permanent budget surplus?
John Penrose
At this point in my remarks, I envisage a consistently balanced budget across the economic cycle. That would be a major step forward and, given this country’s history since the second world war, it would produce a welcome degree of certainty for businesses, Government and everyone else. I will come on to how we might then build up the sovereign wealth fund; the hon. Gentleman might like to come back at me at that point if he thinks I have not covered the issue properly.
Once we have stopped borrowing, we can start saving, which is the point the hon. Gentleman just made. That is where the sovereign wealth fund comes in. Most of that huge national debt comes from our pay-as-you-go state pension and benefits scheme, so paying off Government bonds—gilts—will not be enough on its own. Even worse, we cannot just grow our way out of trouble, because the pension and benefits scheme’s liabilities will just grow with us. Instead, we need a sovereign wealth fund to pay for what we owe in our pensions and benefits system.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the hon. Gentleman is one of the more assiduous members of his party, he will have seen that the Co-operative party floated in September 2013 this very idea of a UK sovereign wealth fund. Does he see our proposal of turning the Crown Estate into that sovereign wealth fund as an attractive idea?
John Penrose
I have not included in my paper any proposal to take existing Government assets and pour them into the sovereign wealth fund, to give it a kick-start. It would be possible, and there are parallels. The previous Chancellor floated the idea of a regional shale gas sovereign wealth fund, based on the proceeds from fracking. A number of Government assets could be added to any sovereign wealth fund, though in my paper, I do not propose that they should be, but there are respectable parallels. For example, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is based on the proceeds of its North sea oil. That is certainly an option to consider. I am not proposing it here, but it is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility. There are very respectable parallels and antecedents elsewhere in the world.
We need a sovereign wealth fund to pay for what we owe in our pensions and benefits system. It would give the scheme the same strong financial foundations as other occupational pension schemes in the UK for the first time in our country’s history. Like those other schemes, it should be managed through a fully independent board—in this case, a new stand-alone national insurance trust with a heavyweight board of trustees, like that of the Bank of England, to prevent political meddling.
Building the fund is rather like repaying a mortgage or saving for a pension: we have to put a little aside every month for a very long time. We would start by creating a new national debt charge, carved out of income tax, to pay the interest on the national debt, currently projected to be just over 2% of GDP by 2021. It would be set as a percentage of GDP and, as the economy grew, any surplus would be used to build up the fund. The process needs to take a long time—several generations—so that the costs do not all fall unfairly on current taxpayers. It is urgent too, because we need to start soon. There will be a brief moment, when the Government’s budget reaches balance in the next Parliament, when we could set the fund up, but old, bad habits die hard. As soon as there is a hint, a sniff, of a surplus, there will be dozens—hundreds—of proposals for tax cuts or extra spending from both sides of the House. Many of them will be excellent ideas, but we must ensure that we do not miss the golden opportunity to set the fund up at that moment, when we can, before it is too late and any surplus money is earmarked for other things.
We must ensure that all the effort and sacrifice of getting the budget in balance is not wasted. A balanced budget cannot be just a one-off episode of fiscal sobriety, in which our rock ’n’ roll economy detoxes for a few months before hitting the party scene again. We need a long-term commitment to clean living—to the fundamental rebalancing of our economy that the sovereign wealth fund would deliver.
Creating the fund would rebalance our economy; build stronger foundations, so that we invest more for the long term; deliver faster growth and extra jobs, so that we could afford stronger and better public services; insulate us against the next economic shock, such as the latest banking crisis; make us less dependent on foreign investors once Brexit is complete; build our international heft around the world; and answer some of those fundamental questions about the kind of country that we want to be after we leave the EU.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of debate. I agree with him about the long-term thinking that will be required to create a sovereign wealth fund. Does he agree with me that successive Governments need to commit to the promotion of a wealth fund? Then the beneficiaries throughout the United Kingdom will support it, because they will see tangible benefits accruing from it.
John Penrose
That is a crucial point. As I said, we need to start building the fund soon. It is an urgent priority that we should begin it when the budget hits balance, but once we have begun, we need to save a little for a very long time, and that needs to last over several generations, so that the burden of setting the thing up does not fall unfairly on the current generation of taxpayers. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: for it to be stable over such a long time, it needs to be politically stable. That means two things. First, I hope that it has cross-party consensus behind it, so that it will have some degree of political longevity; secondly, it will need institutional bulwarks to prevent Chancellors of whichever party, when they are under pressure—facing a general election or a cyclical recession—from interfering, meddling or trying to get their sticky fingers on the money. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the fund will need very strong institutional safeguards around it. Those are laid out in some detail in my paper. I did not plan to go into huge detail about that here. I am happy to, if anyone wants me to, but I thought that I would spare everyone the detail at this stage, simply because of pressure of time and because other hon. Members want to add their thoughts.
If we could do what I propose, we would be a fairer, more generationally just country, because we would not be saddling our children and grandchildren with the bills for our lifestyle. We would be more socially just, because low and high taxpayers would all own the same personal stake in the fund that underpins their state pension and benefit payments.
I hope that all of us in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Minister, will deal with three issues. First, can we all agree that rebalancing our economy is necessary and important? A number of Members have suggested in interventions that there may be consensus on that, but it would be good to get that on the record from hon. Members on both sides of the House if we can. Secondly, can we all acknowledge that once we have the budget in balance, reducing the bits of our national debt that we happen to have issued as Government bonds will not be enough to achieve rebalancing on its own? Thirdly, can we all accept that a sovereign wealth fund to underpin the state pension and benefit system is at least one valid way of solving the deeply ingrained imbalances and problems in our nation’s economy and finances, even if there may be other ways as well?
Think of it: if we can agree on some or all of those issues, cross-party, we could launch a new Britain—a socially just, generationally just, asset-owning democracy on a scale that no other developed nation could match. The post-war Governments created new institutions such as the NHS and the welfare state, which had little relevance to rebuilding homes and cities damaged in the war, but everything to do with forging a new society and nation. The post-Brexit Government is our generation’s chance to do the same—to leave a mark, to mould and weld our fractured society into a new and better shape. This will be a brief political moment in which, if we grasp it without fear, whether we are from the political left or right, we can create a legacy for our children and grandchildren to remember us by with pride, so let us think big and long term, and let us do this together.
George Kerevan
There might be broad agreement on what we are discussing, but the hon. Gentleman has premised much of his case on a surplus being run. As I understand it, the three fiscal rules that the new Chancellor has introduced have moved away from the previous budget surplus rule, and nothing in the current fiscal rules says that we will run a permanent surplus.
John Penrose
What I propose would take effect once we had got the budget in balance. The Chancellor’s new set of fiscal rules is designed to take us through the next few years before we get the budget in balance, but once we do get it in balance, any Chancellor—as we are talking about the period after the next general election, I hope that it will be the current Chancellor, but I will not prejudge the results of that election—will need to rethink and reset fiscal rules. What I argue, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard, is that there should be a national debt charge, initially just to carve out what we are already committed to paying in terms of interest on the debt, but as the economy grows, that would slowly start to yield a very small surplus, which could be used to pay into the sovereign wealth fund. That is a very long-term process, but we need to start it soon.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on securing the debate and raising this most important topic. He asked whether there could be consensus across the House. There are those of us on this side who have been arguing for infrastructure investment for quite some time, for the simple reason that we need to build capacity in the economy—we need to create the circumstances for growth.
We all want a high-wage economy; we would absolutely welcome that. The debate is about the mechanisms that will create it. We make the point that if we want to deliver a balanced budget in this country, that has to come through the delivery of economic growth; it cannot come on the backs of the poor, as has been the case over the last few years because of austerity. The issue has to be about building capacity in the economy, creating the circumstances for growth, which perhaps can deliver the kind of outcomes that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
I am delighted that we are having this debate, but in some senses it is happening too late for us in Scotland. As the House of Commons Library briefing paper confirms, more than 30 countries have sovereign wealth funds, and it is estimated that funds based on oil and gas receipts are responsible for more than half the global total value of those funds. We in the Scottish National party have long argued that we should have established a wealth fund from our oil revenues to ensure that future generations could benefit from the proceeds of North sea oil. Not for the first time, and over a long time, Westminster was not listening.
The UK Government have taken a staggering £340 billion in tax receipts from North sea oil. Where has that gone? Why have we not seen a legacy from that bounty for all the people in this country? It was not invested to ensure that there was a legacy for future generations. Rather than North sea oil receipts being looked at as a bounty that could be invested to ensure that there was future growth, the proceeds of North sea oil were frittered away.
Let us contrast the UK’s lack of foresight with the foresight of our near neighbours in Norway. Norway’s wealth fund, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, now exceeds $905 billion; the value is $177,000 per capita—for each Norwegian citizen. That astonishing sum shows what can be done if people take the right approach to investing in their future. The Norwegians recognised that oil was a bonus. It will run out at some point, but they ensured that their country would have a lasting benefit. Let me quote what The Economist said in an article in September this year:
“Two decades after Norway’s government paid a first deposit into its sovereign-wealth fund, the country is learning how to manage a behemoth. The vehicle, which is used to invest abroad the proceeds of Norway’s oil and gas sales, has amassed a bigger fortune than anyone expected, thanks to bumper oil prices.”
The hon. Gentleman has talked about a wealth fund that may build up over generations, but Norway has achieved the largest wealth fund in the world after two decades because it was prepared to put something away for future generations. In that sense, I support the broad outline of what he says. The article goes on:
“As the direct benefits of oil decline—around 46% of Norway’s expected total haul of oil and gas is gone—the relative importance of the fund will grow. The annual revenues it generates now regularly exceed income from oil sales.”
Establishing a wealth fund from the benefits of North sea oil receipts is an effective means of protecting an economy from oil prices that can prove to be volatile. In that sense, the lucrative revenue generated by oil and gas is used to protect its own longevity as well as the overall prosperity and stability of an economy during price swings. We have known all that for decades.
The McCrone report, delivered to the UK Cabinet Office in 1974, claimed that North sea oil revenues could have made an independent Scotland as economically prosperous as Switzerland. The report was so alarming for the UK Government that it was buried as top secret for 30 years. That is, perhaps, of little wonder. Scotland’s bounty has kept the UK afloat; there is no lasting financial legacy for Scotland. The Norwegians have a foundation of financial security; we have a UK Government who would not come clean on the benefits of North sea oil and have denied us the opportunity to have our own legacy from that bounty. Yes, let us plan for a sovereign wealth fund, but that should have been delivered over the past few decades.
Denis Healey said the following about the saga:
“I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of”
Scottish
“nationalism”.
He said he thought that Westminster politicians
“are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.”
That is the reality, yet we are constantly told by Westminster politicians about the perils of Scottish independence and that we cannot afford to take responsibility for our own destiny. If we had this oil fund, that would give us the tools to manage any financial storms like those we have witnessed over the past few years.
Denis Healey let the cat out of the bag; it was a worry that the wealth of Scotland could create this oil fund and undermine the significance of Westminster. McCrone suggested way back in the 1970s that an oil fund should be set up, but here we are in 2016 asking why we have not done so.
Mr Gregory Campbell
There is an emerging consensus about the need to think long term in regard to the wealth fund. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some people will listen to his comments about an oil fund, which would, by its nature, have a very limited lifespan—the oil is going to run out at some stage in the near future—and think we need to think beyond that lifespan? We need to be talking about a generational expectation rather than a general election expectation.
Ian Blackford
I agree, in so far as we have to establish the mechanisms to make sure that we have something left for future generations and the issue is not just about oil. What I want to do in this debate is talk about the missed opportunities and how we can learn from them.
I will come specifically to how we can deal with not only the financial crisis but the decline in oil prices over the past few years. We cannot run away from the fact. We know that oil prices are depressed at the moment and that revenues from North sea oil have declined alarmingly, and that that will remain the case for the next couple of years. However, there is still the value of 2 billion barrels of oil in the ground under the North sea, and at some point oil prices will recover: there will still be the opportunity to create that oil fund out of the North sea oil revenues.
Mr Gareth Thomas
In the words of Oasis, the hon. Gentleman is looking back in anger. I understand, given his political perspective, why he is doing that. Might I encourage him to look forward and to think about how we might establish a sovereign wealth fund going forward? Has he had the chance—assiduous politician as he most definitely is—to reflect on the Co-op party proposal, which envisages turning the Crown Estate into the beginnings of a UK sovereign wealth fund?
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind remarks. We need to make sure that people in this country can benefit from the wealth that is created. It is a reasonable contribution to the debate to consider what should happen with the Crown Estate.
I would actually take things a stage further because I want to see the benefits of the Crown Estate come down to our communities. There is considerable value generated by the Crown Estate in the highlands and islands of Scotland and we have seen none of the direct benefit of that. Of course some of that will be devolved to the Scottish Government over the coming years, but I do not want the assets of the Crown Estate to sit in a fund, whether that be in London or in Edinburgh; I want my communities in the highlands and islands to benefit directly from it.
There is a bounty that will no doubt come from offshore wind over the course of the next few generations, and I want to take that opportunity to make sure that its benefits and bounty are reinvested back into the highlands and islands, so that we can broaden the base of sustainable economic growth. I agree with the broad direction of travel that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I would do it in a slightly different way to make sure that our local communities get direct benefit from the bounty of the Crown Estates.
I know that many other Members want to speak, so I will move on quickly. We have long argued that to take account of the volatility of North sea oil, we have to establish not just one, but two, funds as and when circumstances permit: a stability fund and a savings fund. Why a stability fund? It is an implicit recognition of the volatility of commodity pricing and a desire to set a cautious budget that would allow excess tax receipts generated in periods of high oil prices to be released for current spending at a time of price weakness. That would create stability of revenue sources for Government spending and protect the economy from price shocks.
Secondly, a long-term savings fund would, as is the case in the 30 countries that have established such funds, have a long-term legacy for future generations. A lack of vision and a focus on only the short-term have seen the UK consistently refuse to do that. If we are now seeing an emerging consensus challenging that, I will be delighted.
Although I welcome this debate and the initiative of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, what he argues for is simply not going to happen in the short term given the state of the UK’s finances today. We need to make sure that in Scotland, as circumstances dictate, we can return to this as a solution for us all.
In the short term, maximising the potential for the North sea and west of Shetland must be a priority. The fiscal and regulatory regime must therefore support ongoing investment, so that we can continue to benefit from the oil that is still there to sustain jobs and our future prosperity. We have taken a substantial bounty from the North sea. Now is not the right time to establish a wealth fund; now is the time to put in place mechanisms that will support the industry, development and the ability to extract longer-term value and, of course, taxation revenue.
Just as those in Westminster sat on their hands when an oil fund should have been established, they have now been slow to respond to the weakness in oil and gas prices. Inaction has impacted the ability to maximise recovery in the industry. Today, the priority is to support this industry with an eye on creating the circumstances that will allow us to return to the needs of establishing an oil fund. For us, recovery in the oil industry and in tax revenues goes hand in hand with a transition to a green economy. It is part of a holistic approach that recognises that we need to adapt to a new, low-carbon economy.
I say yes to a sovereign wealth fund, but as part of a wider strategy. It is just a pity that we have missed so many opportunities and that, in the meantime, Scotland has missed out.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always nice to be called to speak, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on setting the scene on a subject that has to be discussed and given some thought in this House. Those of us here, and those who unfortunately have not been able to make it, will have ideas about how to do this. This is the first stage of a discussion that we should, perhaps, have had many years ago. At least we are starting the process; let us start it with this discussion. I look forward to the shadow Minister’s contribution, other Members’ contributions and, in particular, the Minister’s response on how to take this forward.
We are considering the proposals put on paper by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in his report, “The Great Rebalancing: A sovereign wealth fund to make the UK’s economy the strongest in the G20”. That is a very grand title, but it encapsulates his thoughts on the subject—and, perhaps, our thoughts as well. An enormous level of thought and groundwork went into these proposals. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the paper, which we read—not just the background notes—back home, and it gave us food for thought. I am astonished that he found the time to do so much work on it. Anyone who takes the time to read the background notes will understand the time that he has put into writing this paper, which is worthy of discussion in the House, and in Westminster Hall today.
I was raised to save for a rainy day, as many in my generation were—and that is not just because I am an Ulster Scot and we think that every pound is a prisoner. I was taught to save for a rainy day at an early age by my mother and father, and it has not done me any harm over the years. I am now married, of course, and the money is never my own anymore; it belongs to her, but that is by the bye. I do not wish to dumb down in any way the hard work of the hon. Gentleman, but to me this is like the Government saving for a rainy day, as I said to him when discussing the debate beforehand. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who spoke before me, is a strong advocate for the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women and their pensions, and I am glad he is here. Before I came in, I thought, “What if we had had this fund 20 years ago? We would have been able to look after the WASPI women and make sure their pensions were covered.” We did not, but at least we have chance to look at this issue now.
Ian Blackford
As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a number of pertinent remarks. There is a view that we do not have the resources to pay the appropriate pensions to people, but we should keep an eye on the Government Actuary’s Department, which has argued—I am keen that people should not get away from this—that the national insurance fund will be in surplus to the tune of about £30 billion by 2016-17. The resources are there to give the women what they are due, and over the next 20 or 30 years, pensions will remain affordable.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those figures. I was not aware of them, but if that money is available, perhaps we are in a position to start the fund today with some of those resources.
I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, will know of 63-year-old women in their constituency who still have to work as their pension is unavailable. Those women are wishing that in the 1980s, at the time of the North sea oil find, which we have heard many comments about, the Government had decided to invest in a rainy day fund, which could have helped the pension pot. For that reason, the sovereign wealth fund must be considered seriously by the Government. That is why this matter is worthy of debate.
This issue is not cut and dried, by any means. There is talk of the Government’s shale fund being similar to this plan, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned, but this is not the day to debate the pluses and minuses of fracking. A lot of hard work would need to be carried out before the fund saw any profit, but many people are already making claims about the potential for shale oil, if that comes through—and I suspect that, at some time, it will. We must think about what can be done for the future benefit of all people in the UK. Today’s austerity is a reality for us all. We have to be honest in this House about moneys and finances.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I apologise for my late arrival, Mr Owen; I had another meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to look forward, when it comes to these funds? Oil prices, fracking and all the rest have been referred to, but we have to debate the issue as a whole, including wind turbines and all of that. Green energy could be as much as 40% more expensive, and we have to look at all of it. If we are going to put money in, we have to get the price correct.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for his intervention. As always, it is good to have his businesslike approach; he looks at the real issues critically and focuses on the situation that we are in. We need to look at the issue more widely and at some things that will cost more. That is part of the debate for the future.
We all know that the deficit needs to be cut, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare openly acknowledged, yet it is incumbent on us all to look at the long term; in this House, we have to be visionary, and this debate gives us chance to do so, and to look at how we can secure a better future, using our resources for future generations.
I respectfully point out that, like many people, I have opposed the severity of Government cuts. I have met people in my office who have come for help and thought that they were deserving of benefits, but those have become harder and harder to get. I am sometimes overwhelmed by the cases I come across. It is very hard as an elected representative, no matter which party Members belong to and whatever their views, not to become perturbed and emotional about those cases. When I see people who should be on benefits, whose medical conditions are being made 10 times worse because there is no alternative than to work, I think, “No, we cannot sustain the cuts.” I stand by that belief. I stand by the fact that our front-line medical staff and emergency services need investment to sustain services. I stand by the belief that we need an Army that is capable of dealing with international commitments. All those things need to be in place.
Achieving all that and still cutting the deficit is incredibly hard to imagine, yet it can and must be done. Looking at the situation and saying that we need to invest in our future with a portion of the money is even more difficult, and that is why we are having this debate. Perhaps the national insurance contributions that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber referred to can kick-start the fund.
We expect people to budget with their money at home in exactly the same way. People must pay for a secure home with a mortgage, which should be paid off in some 30 years of work. People must pay their tax and national insurance to ensure healthcare and future security. On top of that, we ask people to pay into a compulsory private pension fund set up by their employer, and they must then live off the returns from that money. That is what we all must do in this place: we must keep all the balls in the air, as we expect our constituents to, while living a normal life. We must pay our mortgage—the deficit—at a rate that enables us to meet the rest of our obligations. Many young couples out there would love a 15-year mortgage, but it is not possible to pay that and live daily. As my mother says, “You cut your cloth to suit your needs.” We must pay off what we can afford to, and continue to spend money on what we must not neglect.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said in his paper on the sovereign wealth fund:
“We can and should start doing this immediately, because it is the only kind of Government spending which can justifiably be paid for with long term debt. It will inevitably mean a slightly longer wait to eliminate the Government deficit and achieve a balanced budget, but should earn a good financial return through higher economic growth nonetheless.”
I agree, and we should consider that. It is a difficult, but not impossible, task. We are elected to take difficult decisions in this House and to ensure that they are the right ones. That is why this debate is so helpful.
At the very least, the proposals merit full Government scrutiny and consideration. A committee should be set up to do this work and to see how the Government can invest now to help future generations. I think of Katie and Mia, my wee granddaughters—most of us probably have grandchildren—and I would give them the world, if only it were mine to give them. We would all do that for our children and grandchildren. We have an obligation to the generations ahead to do the right thing, to make the tough choices now and to secure a better future for them than seems to be on the horizon. The work needs to be done, and the hon. Gentleman has started it with this debate. We now need seriously to consider in this place how to do that. The Minister will lead on this issue, so there is no pressure on him whatever. We look to him genuinely and seriously for guidance on how best we can fulfil our obligations as MPs, and—I do not mean to sound like Trump—on how to make sure that we keep Great Britain great.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to the Front Benchers: because of other commitments, I will have to read their responses to my contribution and others in Hansard.
I want simply to re-emphasise the proposal that the Co-operative party floated some three years ago: that the Crown Estate, which holds some £8.6 billion of land and property, should have changes made to its regulations to allow it to invest overseas and so essentially become the beginning of a sovereign wealth fund. It is appropriate to have a degree of realism about the size of other sovereign wealth funds and, therefore, about the task for a future Government who want to set one up. As others have suggested, one has to start somewhere if one thinks a sovereign wealth fund is a good idea.
For all intents and purposes, the Crown Estate acts like a sovereign wealth fund by investing in property—usually retail centres—and paying the surplus it generates back to the Treasury to help offset the costs of our royal family. We should encourage the Crown Estate to be a little more ambitious by lifting the restriction that says it can invest only in UK assets and by allowing it to invest in assets overseas, as other sovereign wealth funds do. The Crown Estate clearly has a track record of expertise in the retail sector, and one might therefore expect it to continue with that approach. I see no reason for the Crown Estate not being allowed to contemplate, under the Treasury’s watchful eye, investment in similar ventures overseas. The Crown Estate could then hopefully generate sufficient surplus not only to pay for the royal family, but to invest in the types of infrastructure projects that all Members want to see.
The Crown Estate has a comparatively smaller asset base than the funds held by Norway and a number of middle eastern countries. Nevertheless, I see no reason for not advocating a more ambitious strategy, with the hope and aspiration that the Crown Estate might begin to become a sovereign wealth fund. I have had no clear explanation from the Treasury of why it opposes changing the law to lift the restrictions that limit the Crown Estate’s investments to the UK market. I hope that the Minister—if not in this debate, then perhaps by way of letter—will think about that, because if the restriction were lifted, the Crown Estate would begin to act like a sovereign wealth fund.
George Kerevan
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of the Treasury’s reservations might be overcome if we followed the Norwegian example and had limits for classes of investment that a sovereign wealth fund could make? If we went down the route of investing in foreign equities or bonds, only a proportion of that investment would then qualify for the overall fund.
Mr Thomas
That is a helpful suggestion. If the Treasury could be persuaded to allow the Crown Estate to dip its toe in overseas markets, it might initially restrict how and where, and in what type of assets, the Crown Estate invests. The hon. Gentleman, cautious Scot as he clearly is, might wish to encourage the Treasury both to be open-minded about investment overseas and to carefully restrict such investment. I do not oppose such a restriction if it allows the Crown Estate to be a little more imaginative.
With that pithy contribution, I encourage the Minister and my Front-Bench colleague to embrace the Co-op idea with enthusiasm and consider how we might begin a UK sovereign wealth fund.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I begin in time-honoured fashion by thanking the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing this debate. I say that genuinely because we do not get enough chance to think long term or to debate issues in detail, and this is a practical issue on which to do so.
This has been a limited debate, and I begin my summing up by agreeing with many of the hon. Gentleman’s reasons for having some kind of sovereign wealth fund. In the current context, the most important reason is that a sovereign wealth fund would provide inter-generational justice. There have been discussions about a UK sovereign wealth fund since the 1970s; the issue has come and gone. There have been many arguments for a sovereign wealth fund and, in the ’70s, the North sea oil money had arrived and we needed to do something sensible with it.
Such reasons are episodic. On both sides of the House, we have all come to understand that inter-generational fairness is an issue. Successive generations have repeatedly used up available funds, often making a mess of the economic situation, and left it to future generations to pick up the pieces, as the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign is at the moment.
In the absence of any inter-generational mechanism for creating such fairness, we have to consider some kind of sovereign wealth fund. The Government are on record as seeking some form of inter-generational justice, and this is the only mechanism currently under discussion that has any chance of success. Without prejudging how we do it, a sovereign wealth fund is worthy of discussion because it exactly fits the kind of programme that the Government have suggested.
The hon. Gentleman did not examine in any great detail the other argument for some kind of sovereign wealth fund. During a periodic economic crisis, a sovereign wealth fund, provided we do not touch the capital, would give us an emergency revenue stream that can be put to use without unbalancing the broader fiscal mix. Since 2008, at the same time as building up the equity base of their sovereign wealth fund, the Norwegians have been able to tap some of the income stream temporarily, to offset lower tax revenues as a result of the global economic crisis. Again, that would seem to recommend itself to the Treasury.
Ian Blackford
I applaud what Norway has done, but one of the weaknesses of the Norwegian model is that it invests primarily in equities and bonds. If we get this right, there is an opportunity to invest in infrastructure. My hon. Friend is right that we should draw down only on the income streams, but there is a real opportunity to invest in infrastructure to build capacity and growth opportunities, as well as investing in financial assets.
George Kerevan
I could not agree more. I will come on to that, but the Norwegian example is slightly skewed by the fact that Norway is a relatively small country and, when its sovereign wealth fund was being built up, it had an excess of inward investment in the oil industry. Norway therefore did not need to tap the wealth fund for domestic infrastructure expenditure. Norway has also been canny in making significant investment in infrastructure anyway. There is a glaring gap in the UK’s infrastructure investment, and infrastructure would be one of the primary places to secure a positive income stream; it is therefore somewhere we would want to invest.
Just to finish on the Norwegian example, there is never a good time to start a sovereign wealth fund. It is interesting that the Norwegians did not start their wealth fund until the early 1990s, just as oil prices collapsed. They set up a spanking new sovereign wealth fund, and they chose to persevere after oil prices nosedived. Oil revenues built up again during the 1990s and the wealth fund powered away. On whether we should wait and whether there is a right time to start, there is never a right time. The Norwegians started their sovereign wealth fund at the worst possible time for the income streams that they were tapping, namely oil revenues, but they persevered. It is about perseverance and long-term thinking. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare made the key point that this works only if we think long term.
We must look at some of the counter-arguments, because as enthusiasts we tend to let our ideas run away with us. The fundamental argument that is always made, especially from the Conservative Benches, is “Why should the Government—or some Government agency, even at arm’s length—keep the revenues and invest them? Surely we should cut taxes and let people spend the money themselves, because they are better judges of how to invest for the long term.” It is a compelling argument, but the trouble is that historical experience does not bear it out: look what happened to North sea oil revenues back in the 1970s.
It has not yet been mentioned today that a prototype sovereign wealth fund, in the shape of the National Enterprise Board, was set up in 1975 by the then Labour Government to invest in domestic infrastructure. As I remember, it had £1 billion a year from North sea oil. It began by building up a portfolio of British industrial companies. There was a Scottish equivalent, the Scottish Development Agency. That was all abolished in 1979 when the Conservative Government came in under Margaret Thatcher. The argument was, “Individuals and private companies are better able to spend the money, so why not cut taxes?”
The 1980s were the decade of maximum inflow of funds from North sea oil. What happened to investment in that decade? Industrial investment fell—indeed, by the end of the 1980s, the UK turned out to be one of the lowest spenders on private industrial investment in the OECD. So it did not go into private sector investment; what about public sector investment? We started the 1980s with something like 2% of GDP being spent in net public investment in infrastructure, which is quite good by today’s standards. By the end of the decade, that had been reduced to something like 0.2% of GDP. There was a catastrophic fall in investment throughout the 1980s. Whatever the huge influx was of funds from North sea oil, it was not passed on in investments.
What about tax cuts? I always like to remind Conservative Members that during the 1980s the share of taxation in GDP did not fall. Yes, Mrs Thatcher cut income tax quite considerably, but she counterbalanced that by increasing VAT. The overall tax burden did not fall, so we have to ask where the North sea oil money—the excess revenue for the Treasury of more than £100 billion in that decade, in contemporary terms––went.
In the first half of the 1980s, there was a very serious recession, from which the economy took 18 quarters to recover and which reduced the Treasury’s overall tax income. Essentially, the Treasury made up the loss from that early-1980s Thatcherite recession by using the North sea oil money. In the end, in the 1980s—the peak years of income from North sea oil—the money was wasted. It did not go into private or public infrastructure investment and it was not used by private individuals to expand their savings; it simply went down the drain.
John Penrose
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is not necessarily a choice between tax cuts and a sovereign wealth fund? Potentially, depending on pacing, we could do both. In some cases, it might make sense to do both, if only because—as the Government have already said in answer to parliamentary questions—we will need to do something to reduce the country’s overall debt burden. All I am arguing is that we should not ignore the liabilities built up in our state pensions and benefit system as part of that burden. We need to address that and we may also want to make tax cuts, but for different reasons, to do with demand stimulation and so on.
George Kerevan
In a spirit of compromise and reaching a consensus that might have an impact on the Treasury, I happily take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
All I am trying to say is that the crude default assumption that taking the money and giving it to individuals or companies will resolve the infrastructure investment problem has historically not proven correct. We come back to the need for some kind of overall public agency that saves and invests. The crude Thatcherite argument, if Members will forgive me for putting it that way, that says “Leave it to the public” is wrong. Short-term pressures on the public and on companies are just as great as those on Governments and Ministers. Somebody somewhere has to create an agency that thinks long term. That is what we are talking about.
Mr Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman’s colleague was a bit sniffy about the idea of turning the Crown Estate into such an agency. Could the hon. Gentleman be persuaded to be more positive about the idea?
George Kerevan
I am not sure that I recognise that characterisation of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). In case it has never been said on the record before, I will say that he was once my student when I lectured in economics—he is younger than he looks—so everything he knows about economics probably came from me. Anyway, I will come on to the Crown Estate in a minute.
What should we spend the money on? I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) that the Norwegian example of simply investing in foreign equity is too narrow. Given the primary crisis here in the UK, we should impose an injunction on whatever form of wealth fund we create to invest primarily—not totally, because for safety and balance it should have a remit to spread its portfolio—in infrastructure. The OECD reckons that a baseline of something like 3.5% of GDP should be reinvested in public infrastructure every year to maintain and develop reasonable levels of productivity. In the UK, that investment has fallen to less than 2%. I fully recognise that significant funds for infrastructure investment over the forecast period were announced in the autumn statement, but even so the figure will rise only to about 2.3%, and we need to get up to at least 3.5%, so there is an infrastructure investment gap. The flow of funds could come from a sovereign wealth fund, because above all a sovereign wealth fund can think long term, whereas the City and the financial institutions are being forced to think more and more short term. Again, one of the crucial things we get from a sovereign wealth fund is the ability to think long term rather than just talk about thinking long term.
How would we fund it? I share some of the disquiet about simply linking it to running a budget surplus. Running a budget surplus is extraordinarily difficult; it has rarely been possible to run one over any length of time, in this country or in others. Gordon Brown ran one for a few years at the beginning of the millennium, but it was largely done through artifice because he sold off the gold reserves at rather a bad time. Roy Jenkins, who some Members may be old enough to remember, ran a budget surplus at the end of the 1960s, but only with a hugely draconian austerity programme that actually undercut investment in the long run.
From looking closely at the autumn statement, I do not believe that there is much chance of our running a budget surplus at the end of the forecast period. I certainly agree that we should seek to have a balanced current budget over the medium term, but artificial controls on investment and on borrowing for investment are the wrong way to go. There is no reason not to have quite a healthy borrowing for investment, provided that it is roughly in line with trend growth, because it will make a return. Simply linking the sovereign wealth fund to running a budget surplus is offering a hostage to fortune.
We should therefore look at other sources of funding. The Crown Estate is one—clearly we have assets there that could be deployed. I also remind hon. Members of something that has not yet been mentioned: in the last decade, most of the sovereign wealth funds that have been created, particularly in China, have come from recycling the foreign investment earnings from a trade surplus. It is a bit difficult for the UK, given that we have a trade deficit. Fortunately, in Scotland, where we still have a trade surplus, that surplus would underline the re-creation of our sovereign wealth fund.
Clearly, this is an idea whose time has come and about which there is broad consensus across the parties. It is also an idea that the Treasury has always been reluctant to think about, but that stems from the short-termism of the Treasury. The new Chancellor has suggested that he wants to think longer term. A sovereign wealth fund would be his chance to prove that that is what he is going to do.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mr Owen, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing a debate on such a genuinely interesting issue: his proposition for a UK sovereign wealth fund. I have read with interest his recent paper for the Social Market Foundation, “The Great Rebalancing”; the ideas he presented there are very much the basis for his speech today. He was kind enough to advertise the paper’s availability for those seeking a late Christmas present for a loved one. However, I can genuinely say that I enjoyed his pamphlet and I enjoyed listening to his speech today.
I do not want to get the hon. Gentleman into any trouble, but I have to say that parts of his speech were very much on board with certain parts of current Labour party economic policy, even if we do not necessarily reach the same conclusion on this issue. However, on separating current and capital spending and balancing day-to-day spending while allowing for long-term investment, we are very much on the same page. I only hope that his Government will listen to him and implement such a sound economic policy, which is rapidly becoming a mainstream consensus position.
The Labour party has been calling for higher levels of Government investment, given that, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members outlined, we are investing less as a percentage of GDP than any other comparable developed nation. As the hon. Gentleman writes in his pamphlet:
“The result is chronic under-investment relative to other developed nations, and creaking infrastructure which chokes and slows economic growth.”
Frankly, I could not agree more: we are committed to mobilising billions of pounds more for sustainable investment in the UK economy. We want to see £250 billion of direct Government expenditure in key infrastructure projects over the next 10 years and a further £250 billion mobilised through a national investment bank. Labour will deliver the long-term investment the UK economy needs, to boost growth and tax receipts, and to ensure that our welfare and public services can receive the funding they desperately need—today and in the future. In that way, the public finances will be better placed to respond to the demands of meeting pensions and benefits payments in the long term.
The hon. Gentleman’s idea is for a sovereign wealth fund that would be ring-fenced for pensions and benefits payments. I see some difficulties with that idea. Ring-fencing our pensions and benefits systems to a sovereign wealth fund means using a pot that would vary pro-cyclically to fund a social security system that functions counter-cyclically. In other words, benefits need to be paid out when the economy takes a downward turn, which is when the wealth fund would be at its weakest. Moreover, it seems risky to use a fluctuating fund as a ring-fenced source of public spending that needs to be fairly stable in the long term. What would happen if, at the moment people needed Government support, the wealth fund could not pay out?
The hon. Gentleman wrote in his paper that
“Clearly it wouldn’t be generationally fair or just to expect the same people who had just fought a war, or weathered the financial storm of a global financial crisis, to rebuild the financial cushion…within the next few years of a single economic cycle.”
However, I feel that an eventuality such as a war could cause exactly that type of situation. We have already seen that the Conservative Government consider it fair for the average UK citizen to pay the price of six years of austerity following a financial crash in which they played no real part, and I am not sure how a sovereign wealth fund would ensure that that could not happen again.
Of course, there are advantages to wealth funds if they are used, for example, to invest in infrastructure projects, which many Members have mentioned. However, countries with effective funds tend to run a budget surplus and, as we are all too aware, the UK does not—and has not done so for some time. Indeed, the last Chancellor missed out on all his deficit reduction targets and did not reach his arbitrary surplus goal, so it is no wonder the new Chancellor has abandoned that goal altogether. I struggle to see now how a fund could be built up, given the pressures on the public finances as they stand.
Overall, though, the concept of a sovereign wealth fund for the UK is definitely one that should be discussed. Other countries around the world have indeed benefited from establishing one, and Norway’s great success is often cited as an example. However, at this stage we do not have a workable proposal about how to build up the necessary reserves, and I would certainly not be happy with people becoming dependent on a fluctuating fund for state support and pensions, as has been advocated. Equally, we need to be realistic about how capable Britain is of building up such a vehicle at this time and about the difference between our circumstances and those in countries that have deployed sovereign wealth funds to their benefit.
However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing us to debate this issue today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments. I am sure that the idea of a sovereign wealth fund will be debated in more detail in the future.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing this debate today. The issues it raises go to the heart of the Government’s economic approach, which is to get our finances in order and to build for the long term-success of the country. I read with great interest my hon. Friend’s paper, produced with the Social Market Foundation; I might indeed consider purchasing it as a small Christmas gift. The objectives that informed his paper are all ones that I share, along with Members on both sides of the House, I am sure: to see the UK’s economy strengthen and grow sustainably in the future.
Let me start by addressing the idea of sovereign wealth funds more generally, because I agree that they can form an important part of any country’s strategy for investing in its future success. Often, they are a way for Governments to manage fiscal surpluses, foreign currency operations or balance of payments surpluses. They can indeed be an effective tool for both planning sustainable investment and managing volatility in receipts. We have seen how they can work well for countries that have large fiscal surpluses. Hon. Members have mentioned Norway’s Government pension fund; there is also Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency’s foreign holdings fund.
However, we are not debating today the valuable role that sovereign wealth funds play in other countries around the world; we are considering whether such a fund would be appropriate for the UK, and—importantly—appropriate at this time. As the House is fully aware, we are not in the same position as many other countries that have elected to set up such funds. The crucial point is that the UK has not run a surplus since the start of this century, although we are now committed to doing so.
We have chosen the path of a credible fiscal policy that will restore our economy for long-term health, and although we are no longer seeking to deliver that surplus in 2019-20, we remain resolved to do so, to bring our public finances into balance. That is why we have committed once again in the autumn statement to deliver the surplus: we set out our plan to make that happen as soon as possible in the next Parliament, while in the interim bringing cyclically adjusted borrowing below 2% by the end of this Parliament, and getting public sector net debt, as a share of GDP, to fall in this Parliament, too.
I share my hon. Friend’s conviction about the need for strong and sustainable public finances for the UK and I understand his interest in exploring the potential for a British sovereign wealth fund. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the country should be prepared for a rainy day—sensible advice that we should all listen to. However, given that UK debt will soon be at a 50-year high of 90.2% of GDP, our priority must be to return the public finances to balance and to get the debt falling before we can consider a sovereign wealth fund in more detail. However, although such a fund may not be an appropriate avenue for us to explore at this stage, I will touch on some of the issues that today’s consideration has raised.
One such issue has been our infrastructure. One of the key roles that a sovereign wealth fund can perform is to act as a vehicle to fund sustained investment in infrastructure. Although we may not have a sovereign wealth fund, or even a formal statutory target for the proportion of our GDP that we invest in infrastructure, the Government share my hon. Friend’s conviction about making the infrastructure investments we need that will boost our productivity and strengthen our economy. That is why we have asked the National Infrastructure Commission to make recommendations on the future infrastructure needs of the country.
Once again, I refer all Members to the commitment in the autumn statement, where we prioritised high-value investment in infrastructure and innovation. That included the new national productivity investment fund, with £23 billion of extra spending targeted at high-value projects that will deliver more opportunities and higher living standards for working people—whether that is more homes, better transport links or the 21st-century digital capacity we need.
Ian Blackford
The Minister is setting out why he thinks it is not relevant to set up a sovereign wealth fund today, but does he accept that there was a missed opportunity with the £340 billion bounty that came from North sea oil? That could have been used to establish an oil fund that would have delivered benefits for today and the future.
Simon Kirby
I often say as an MP—I suppose the same is true as a Minister—that it would be nice to have a crystal ball, a magic wand and a time machine. We are where we are, and we have to make the best decisions going forward—rather than looking back in anger, if I may quote the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).
The additional capital will take public sector net investment to over 4% of GDP for the rest of this Parliament, well above the average of the last 30 years; in real terms, it has been more than 50% higher on average this decade than it was under the whole period of the previous Government.
Another aspect of my hon. Friend’s excellent paper was the suggestion that a new national debt charge be carved out of income tax to help pay down the debt. He will know how much I share his conviction that we need to get debt falling, but I know he also shares the Government’s commitment to helping people who are just about managing. It is important that we build an economy that works for everyone. That is why we would not look to deliver a new income tax charge in our current position. Indeed, as part of the tax lock, we have legislated not to increase the main rates of income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT during this Parliament. Alongside that, we have prioritised an approach to taxation that supports working people, such as our increase in the tax-free personal allowance.
John Penrose
Just to ensure that we are all clear, I clarify that my paper supports what the Minister is describing. The proposal in my paper is that the national debt charge would not start until the budget was in balance and would only equal what we were already going to be paying in debt interest to begin with. I reassure him that I am not suggesting an undercutting or a swerving away from the fiscal rules announced in the autumn statement. Those are essential to get us to the point where the budget is in balance, as he is ably laying out at the moment.
Simon Kirby
I thank my hon. Friend for again demonstrating what a sensible person he is.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) asked about North sea oil and why we did not create a fund in the past. He knows full well that successive Governments made use of the revenue from North sea oil to support public finances in the years when the revenues rose. I can tell him that going forward from April 2017, his Scottish Government will have the powers to contribute to their own reserve fund if they so wish. Perhaps that is something they might consider. We all agree that investment in infrastructure is key to growing the economy. That is why the extra £23.7 billion announced in the autumn statement is important; it takes the total we are spending to £170 billion during this Parliament. That will improve productivity, increase living standards and be an essential part of our plan going forward.
George Kerevan
About half of the extra £23 billion that the autumn statement has put into infrastructure investment is going into housing. How does that raise productivity?
Simon Kirby
Housing does raise productivity. It is a much-needed part of our economy. People need affordable homes to rent or buy. The building process, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, creates jobs and increases prosperity and productivity.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned a shale fund—a suggestion that others have made, too. The UK does not currently meet the criteria of a country that would benefit from a shale wealth fund: we have a high debt and a large deficit, and we do not have extensive commodity or natural resource exports. The development of the shale industry would leave a positive legacy for local communities and regions where it is based. The Government’s policy is for those communities to be able to choose to invest the funds for the long term. I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for making a very thoughtful contribution that added greatly to the debate. [Official Report, 19 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 9-10MC.]
The hon. Member for Harrow West apologised for not being able to be present during my speech, and I appreciate that. He asked about lifting investment restrictions on the Crown Estate. That is an interesting idea; I will do as he asked and write back to him on that matter.
I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), as ever, for his thoughtful contribution. He mentioned inter-generational fairness. I agree that that is an important issue, but at 90% of GDP next year, our debt is just too high. That represents a burden on future generations, and it is important that we retain our focus on our priority of returning the public finances to balance and getting the debt falling. Therefore, it is not possible, and it would not currently be appropriate, for the UK to set up a sovereign wealth fund. He also mentioned taxation levels; I feel duty-bound to remind him that from tomorrow, for the first time, his party—the SNP—will be able to put up taxes in Scotland. The Scottish Government can put their money where their mouth is, if they choose to do so.
John Penrose
The Minister is being generous. I want to pick up on the point he has now made twice: about prioritising the reduction of the overall level of Government debt in the economy once we have eliminated the deficit. I completely applaud that, but does he accept in return that the debt denominated as gilts or as bonds is only part of the overall picture of liabilities that the Government and successive Government have loaded up? A large proportion of the total liabilities—a larger proportion than the actual debt denominated as bonds—is embedded in the state pensions and benefits system. It would be a mistake for any of us to ignore those liabilities. They are equivalent to debt, so at some point we need to face up to the costs that they include, as well as to the ones he is rightly pointing out with the bonds themselves.
Simon Kirby
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I accept that the debt is made up of a variety of different things.
I commend my hon. Friend once again for securing the debate, which has been interesting. We have discussed some significant issues for the British economy. There are many areas where he and I are in full agreement, but in closing, I would like to highlight three key aspects.
First, rebalancing our economy is necessary and important. Secondly, dealing with the deficit and getting debt falling is necessary but not sufficient to rebalance the economy. A dynamic and strong economy where growth is shared across all parts of the UK is what we need. Thirdly, on the effectiveness of sovereign wealth funds in various countries, I must repeat our conviction that setting one up is not appropriate for the UK at this point in time when our priority is to get debt falling.
Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare notes in his paper, there is little point in attempting to build up such a fund when debt is at
“its current, historically high levels.”
I share my hon. Friend’s desire to live within our means —the hon. Member for Strangford used the expression “to cut our cloth accordingly”—and to secure our public finances, to get debt falling and to invest sensibly in our future success, which are all important areas that represent core priorities for the Government. Those priorities were reflected in the approach that we outlined in last month’s autumn statement: to build an economy that works for everyone.
John Penrose
What a splendid debate. There is a high degree of consensus among all parties, with a few isolated islands holding out against the principle. Much of the debate has been about how we might set up a fund, the competing mechanisms that we might use to build it up, and when we should have started, but there has been widespread agreement that, in principle, such a fund is desirable. Scottish National party Members say they are in favour of the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, but they argued that we should have started it earlier and built it up from oil. None the less, they were in favour.
The voice of Northern Ireland agreed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said he was brought up to save for a rainy day, as were we all, and he is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) brought up the Co-op party’s suggestion—similar but not identical to mine—which was helpful.
Although the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) was kind about my paper, I am not sure that the Labour party and I are at the same point on generational justice; it puts less weight on it than I do, although I reassure him that the fluctuations in the fund that he is worried about need not be fatal, but that is for a longer conversation on another occasion.
The Minister was very helpful in accepting the three questions that I asked. On the need for rebalancing, he was clear about the desirability of making our economy more robust and more sustainable. Is debt repayment sufficient on its own, or do we have to take into account our broader liabilities, to rebalance the economy? The answer to the latter is yes, and the Minister was clear about that. He left the door temptingly open on whether this proposal is the right answer. He was generous in his acknowledgement of the strengths and benefits of sovereign wealth funds around the world. He rightly says, as my proposal acknowledges, that it would be wrong to start such a thing now. He leaves the door temptingly ajar, so that it might be something we should consider in future, but I understand that he cannot commit Her Majesty’s Government to this at this point. However, that gives us plenty of opportunity, on a cross-party basis, to come back to this and make sure that that chink of light is brought into full focus.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK Sovereign Wealth Fund .
A-level Archaeology
(8 years 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
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of A level archaeology.
First, I declare an interest, having studied archaeology at university. I have hacked through jungles in pursuit of Mayan pyramid sites and spent wet summers in duffel coats digging up Roman forts on Hadrian’s wall. I started such practices at the age of seven on a Saxon homestead on a windy hillside in Sussex. I am chairman of the all-party groups for archaeology and for the British Museum, and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. I want to put on record my thanks to Dr Mike Heyworth of the Council for British Archaeology, who provides the secretariat for the all-party group on archaeology and has provided very useful information for today’s debate.
The subject of the debate may seem somewhat niche, although I am sure it does not seem so to you, Mr Owen, but it is important. If nothing is done, the current cohort of students studying archaeology in our schools and colleges will be the last. We have already lost the GCSE in archaeology. I studied AO-level archaeology all those years ago. Those days are long since gone, because in October, the AQA examination board, the last board offering archaeology at A-level, announced that after a lot of consideration it had made the difficult decision to discontinue, from September 2017, its work creating new AS and A-level qualifications in archaeology, classical civilisation, history of art and statistics. That is despite the fact that in 2016 more than 600 candidates sat the AS exams in archaeology and 369 sat the A-level. The number has been fairly consistent over the past five years.
On its website, AQA describes archaeology as
“one of the most exciting subjects in the curriculum. It is the ultimate subject for an ‘all-round’ student, in that it combines elements of many other academic disciplines, such as Science, Art, Technology, Geography, History, Sociology and Religious Studies. The study of Archaeology challenges students to understand and use a range of evidence to draw substantiated conclusions and raises their awareness of the uncertainty of knowledge.”
Indeed, it is one of the most exciting, challenging and stretching subjects in the curriculum. Far from scrapping it, we should be promoting and expanding it to more schools and more students, particularly in the state sector.
Archaeology is not some dusty, crusty, outdated subject for eccentric fossils like me. It teaches us about who we are, where we come from, where we can go, and how we relate to those around us. As the great Roman republican senator, consul and historian, Cicero, said, to be ignorant of what happened before one was born is to remain always a child.
Tim Loughton
On the point of Cicero, I am delighted to have an intervention.
Alex Chalk
We will have some Ciceronian advocacy. Archaeology ought not to be seen as a poor cousin of history. All the reasons to study history apply in equal measure to archaeology.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Archaeology teaches us the disciplines of forensic analysis; how to peel back the layers of evidence, literally; how to contextualise and study the data in physical form—or often, as importantly, its absence in physical form—and to make assumptions based on scientific analysis. In a contemporary context, those same disciplines were brought to bear in the Shoreham air show tragedy in my constituency last year, when expert archaeologists were brought in to help in the grim but necessary job of identifying remains. There are many everyday applications for archaeologists in police, crime and detective work.
From archaeology, we learn a lot about our environment and the relationship between man and our landscape. We learn about why a bronze-age settlement was built on the side of the downs, for example, and about the relationship with sources of water and the preservation of scarce resources. How were the Romans able to keep food fresh and preserved without electricity and refrigeration? How did the Mayans build pyramids that mirrored the cosmos with the most accurate charts and calendars until the invention of the modern computer? How did the Greeks build such magnificent temples without JCBs and machines? They can all teach us a lot about recycling, respecting and conserving resources, and working in partnership with nature when food miles were scarce and expensive.
There are numerous examples of how archaeology has helped modern civilisation, such as the rediscovering of the Roman irrigation system in Libya to provide water for sustainable agriculture today. From archaeology we can learn about our society at a national and local level; what binds us together across generations; and where archaeological and heritage projects can be a major tool for regeneration and education, especially in deprived communities. Archaeology is a major driver of the economy, not only as a source of visitor attractions and because of its contribution to tourism, but as a serious employer in many sectors, too.
Heritage tourism in this country generated some £20.2 billion gross value added last year and is responsible for 386,000 jobs. The British Museum is the No. 1 visited attraction in the United Kingdom, with more than 7 million visitors. It is the world’s greatest museum—a museum of and for the world and the culture of mankind on this planet. There is a contribution, too, from marine archaeology, through famous wrecks such as the Mary Rose, which attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors to Portsmouth.
In the creative arts, the stories, films and programmes about the treasures of Tutankhamun and Howard Carter, the documentaries on Egypt and the more fanciful adventures of Indiana Jones, for example, are all linked to archaeology. In Syria, there are horrific scenes of man’s inhumanity to man, but more attention was given to the tragedy because of the destruction of archaeological treasures and UNESCO world heritage sites, such as the magnificent Palmyra, which I was privileged to visit when it was safe to do so.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to the jobs created in the heritage sector. I am grateful to Dr John Davey, the lab manager for archaeology at the University of Exeter. He told me that 55.3% of those employed in this area are aged 45-55 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows the importance of continuing A-level archaeology to recruit the people we will need in future to replace those retiring?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is right. I am very grateful for the work that many academics in archaeology departments have done to communicate important facts to Members of Parliament about how archaeology applies across the generations and across social backgrounds.
Going back to Syria, a nation’s soul is its culture and heritage. That is why it is so important to preserve and protect important sites and the products of their civilisations. If war-torn countries such as Syria are to pull themselves up and recover, retrieving a sense of cultural identity will be a major part of that, but when misused, archaeology can be distorted by nation states to create slanted, propaganda-driven visions of the past.
There is also the practical application of archaeology and archaeologists in a developed industrial country such as the United Kingdom. If we are to build houses, develop communities and construct major infrastructure projects, we need archaeologists to recce and clear the ground first. If the northern powerhouse, High Speed 2, garden cities and the like are to happen, we need trained archaeologists in at the beginning. They are in short supply, as confirmed by the Chartered Institute of Archaeologists and the study carried out by the all-party parliamentary group on archaeology.
Historic England has said that it is
“concerned to hear that archaeology will no longer be an option at A-level. We anticipate growing demand for archaeologists trained to handle the large number of excavations likely to be needed in advance of housing development and major infrastructure projects. So we need to be encouraging the development of archaeological skills, and broadening the appeal of archaeology as a discipline. This move will close off a small but significant route into the profession. To address the situation we are working with universities and other organisations to promote archaeology apprenticeships and vocational training to offer potential new routes into the profession.”
Professor Carenza Lewis of the University of Lincoln and of “Time Team” fame notes that archaeology develops a range of transferable knowledge and skills, such as credible thinking, structured working, reflective learning, report writing, team working, verbal communication and citizenship, and that a lack of those skills often disadvantages students, particularly those from less affluent backgrounds, when they attempt to continue their education or enter the workplace. I say “hear, hear” to that. I could add a whole list of disciplines involving the environment, sustainability, culture, regeneration and heritage.
Archaeology is also a major source of volunteering. In 1985, the Council for British Archaeology calculated that there were something like 100,000 archaeological volunteers across the country, spread between about 450 societies. By 2010, that had grown to 215,000, across 2,030 organised archaeological groups and societies. Dr Daniel Boatright, who teaches archaeology A-level at Worcester Sixth Form College and started a petition that has so far attracted 13,261 signatures, says:
“Specialist A-levels like archaeology are vital tools in sparking students’ interest in learning and in preparing vital skills for use when they go onto university courses. AQA is extremely naïve if it believes UK students will benefit from a curriculum of only the major subjects. What we will be most sorry to lose is a subject capable of bringing out talent and potential in students that might have been left undiscovered.”
He is absolutely right.
Why is archaeology A-level so integrally important? Nearly three quarters of students who study A-level archaeology go on to study it at university, from where many of our archaeology professionals come. That route to jobs will now be cut off.
It is clear that this decision by AQA is hasty and ill-thought-through. It was announced without any discussion with anyone in archaeology or anyone associated with the delivery of the A-level or its redevelopment. It came out of the blue, apparently flying in the face of the archaeological community, which is and has been ready to offer additional support and publicity for the new qualification and has already undertaken research on what is needed. A lot of hard work has already taken place in expectation that the archaeology A-level would be revamped, reinvigorated, grown and promoted. As the Council for British Archaeology said, the archaeology profession has been developing Government-approved apprenticeships, which are due to be launched in 2017. Together with A-level archaeology, they would have offered an important alternative pathway into the profession at a time when there is a growth in demand for archaeologists linked with large infrastructure projects. I want to pay tribute to the good work done by the Department for Education in promoting the Heritage Schools project to bring archaeologists and other experts into schools.
AQA has given three main reasons for its decision to discontinue the qualification: the complexity of the syllabus means that there is a lack of specialists to act as markers; there are declining numbers coming forward to study the subject, although they have been fairly constant over five years; and there are difficulties in maintaining a comparative marking system with the degree of optionality available in the specification.
The archaeological community has queried all three points. Feedback from Ofqual had been very positive about the development of the new specification and the progression of the drafts. There is general consensus among examiners and teachers that the new syllabus would reduce complexity; there is a wealth of qualified examiners and teachers; and there are offers of increased support from higher education archaeology academics. People who have applied to become markers of the archaeology A-level are on a waiting list. The necessary specialisms are available in the existing examining group; there has been no attempt by AQA to discuss this with the group, which I think is a great shame. It makes no sense that AQA has dropped the subject at this time.
Alex Chalk
Does my hon. Friend agree that the criticisms or concerns raised by AQA apply just as much to history of art? It made a U-turn on history of art, and therefore it ought to make a U-turn on this as well.
Tim Loughton
It has not made a U-turn on those subjects; they have been taken on by another examination board—I will come to that in a minute—but my hon. Friend makes a valid point.
There has been a glimmer of hope: alternative examination boards have shown an interest, most notably Pearson UK, which has previously come to the rescue of under-appreciated subjects, and which announced earlier this month that it would be taking over the art history and statistics A-levels and GSCEs and A-levels in five minor languages. Yet the archaeology A-level is left to languish unloved. I am encouraged to hear that, after an initial rejection, Pearson UK is meeting a delegation from the CBA, the chair of University Archaeology UK and the chief examiner for AQA A-level archaeology next week.
The archaeological sector has been galvanised into offering considerable support for the development and delivery of the new archaeology A-level specification, with offers from employers, academics, archaeological contractors, teachers, Historic England and assorted professional bodies. The all-party parliamentary group stands ready. Sir Tony Robinson—I am delighted that he is not far from us today—who did so much to inspire a generation of children, including my son, to dig up their garden in the pursuit of the past, as well as all his work with “Time Team”, is also fully behind the campaign. He has described the loss of archaeology A-level as
“a barbaric act…It feels like the Visigoths at the gates of Rome.”
So why is this down to the Government? What do I want the Minister to do? The situation comes about as a result of changes to A-levels under this Government. AQA has said that, prior to its decision, it was fully committed to offering a new A and AS-level in archaeology, accredited by Ofqual, using the subject criteria determined by the Department for Education. It had already put considerable resources into developing those new qualifications, fully intending to offer them from 2017. However, in the process of developing and obtaining accreditation for the new levels, it concluded that the new qualifications developed from the Government’s criteria would be extremely challenging to mark, as the large number and specialist nature of the options created major risk to safely awarding grades. It was in that context that AQA concluded that there were unacceptable awarding delivery risks for the new archaeology A-level.
AQA has signalled that, if it gives up the A-level, it is agreeable to handing over the majority of the specification material that has been developed for the planned archaeology A-level, together with initial comments from Ofqual. It also helpfully agreed to consider continuing to offer the existing specification for a further year to aid a transition to a new exam board and ensure that there is no gap. On 23 November, the Minister replied to me that he was in discussion with other examination boards on this issue. I would like to know what progress has been made. He praised Pearson UK for coming to the rescue of the other A-levels that had been dropped, but curiously not archaeology.
I know that the Minister is an accountant, but surely even he could not fail to be seized by the moment when Howard Carter glimpsed those treasures of Tutankhamun, hidden from human reach for 3,300 years; when Sir Leonard Woolley first came across the Sumerian treasures from the royal tombs at Ur; or when Hiram Bingham first glimpsed that fantastic Mayan city in the sky, Machu Picchu. Surely even the Minister, with his frenzied interest in spreadsheets and profit and loss balance paragraphs, could not have failed to be enthused and to grab for a four-inch pointing trowel to investigate what lay beneath his feet.
Parliament has a special relationship with archaeology. It was this House that, in 1753, in an Act of Parliament, established the British Museum as a universal museum; it now has 8 million items. Sir Austen Henry Layard, Liberal MP for Amersham from 1852, gave us invaluable archaeological records and some of the first sketches of the ruins at Nineveh, Nimrod and Babylon. Lord Avebury, MP for Maidstone from 1870, rescued Avebury—the largest stone-age site in Britain—invented the terms palaeolithic and neolithic, and drove the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882. We have a special relationship with, a special interest in, and a special duty to the archaeological treasures of this country and, indeed, the world.
This is an opportunity for the Minister to prove that he is not a Visigoth. All excavation archaeology is inevitably destructive, but has the legitimate and valuable purpose of adding to the knowledge of man.
Tim Loughton
I am going to finish.
Destroying such a successful route to widening that knowledge is unforgiveable and illegitimate. I hope that the Minister will think again.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this very important debate. I agree with him—I have never seen him as a dusty fossil, and I hope he does not see me as a Visigoth—about the importance of archaeology. It is an important discipline. It connects our present to our past and helps us understand what it means to be human. Anyone who has had the privilege to visit Pompeii or gaze in wonder at the treasures of Sutton Hoo—even an accountant—knows how far archaeology has enriched our cultural heritage and our understanding of the past. It would indeed be a tragedy if our young people were prevented from pursuing archaeology as a career in the future.
Securing a pipeline of students to study archaeology at university, as my hon. Friend did, is clearly very important, but it would be wrong to assume that only students who study the subject at A-level go on to degree-level study. As he knows, archaeology is a broad subject requiring critical analysis and research skills. It covers aspects of art, history, science, sociology and mathematics. Universities look for students who have a range of academic A-levels for entry to their archaeology courses.
For those reasons, and because the archaeology A-level is not widely available, universities do not require an A-level in the subject as a prerequisite for degree-level study. The number of students currently studying the subject at A-level is very low: there were just 340 entries in 2016, of which just 26 were from state-funded schools. Although the Council for British Archaeology has sought to encourage take-up of archaeology A-level, it also advises students who are contemplating a degree in archaeology to consider humanities A-levels, particularly history, geography or geology, and a science A-level where the course follows a science-based route. A knowledge of ancient languages can also be a useful route in many courses.
Those are the subjects that many universities are looking for. A greater focus on those facilitating subjects will ensure that a broad range of high-quality choices are available to A-level students and help them to choose the subject that will open the most doors to top university courses. We have worked with universities and exam boards to develop new A-levels that better prepare students for university study, including in each of those subjects.
In history A-level, students must study topics from a chronological range of at least 200 years, and might, for example, make use of archaeological sources to complete their compulsory, independently researched historical inquiry. In ancient history, students must develop a broad and extensive understanding of the ancient world. They must understand the nature and methods of the analysis and evaluation used to examine historical evidence. In geography and geology, students are now required to have extensive practical field work skills and the analytical knowledge to interpret their findings. Across a range of subjects, our reforms to A-levels will equip students with the knowledge that is essential for undergraduate study.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about AQA’s decision not to develop a new archaeology A-level for teaching from September 2017. I share his disappointment about its decision. I assure hon. Members that, contrary to some media reports, it was not a Government decision; it was taken by AQA itself. Our intention has always been that there should continue to be an A-level in archaeology, which is why we published subject content earlier this year. The way our exam system works is that individual exam boards decide which qualifications to develop once the Government have set the relevant framework. The Government can seek to persuade where necessary, but ultimately we cannot require the boards to develop particular qualifications. Their decisions on whether to do so depend on a range of factors, including the level of demand for a qualification and the extent to which they can offer a high-quality qualification and award grades to students fairly and consistently.
In this particular case, AQA initially intended to develop a new archaeology A-level, but, having submitted an initial specification to the regulator, Ofqual, for accreditation, it reviewed its position and concluded that it was not able to continue. It explained that the decision was due to concerns about challenges in ensuring that grades could be awarded in a safe and fair way, given the small number of students taking the subject and the wide range of options that the qualification would need to offer, which meant that ensuring comparability between students would be difficult.
Tim Loughton
The points that the Minister is making about archaeology apply also to statistics and history of art, which have been saved. I quoted the problems that AQA cited. Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a problem with AQA and that many people are moving away from it? It did not consult the archaeological community, which offered help on all those problems, so they could have been addressed. Because it is the only examining authority that still offers archaeology, the future of archaeology is now in peril.
Mr Gibb
I will come to the other A-levels that my hon. Friend refers to in a moment. AQA was also having difficulty recruiting suitable examiners for the qualification. Those challenges also apply to the existing A-level, which AQA offers. It tried for some time to find acceptable solutions, but unfortunately it has not been able to do so.
My hon. Friend asks what action the Government have taken to secure the future of the qualification. As soon as AQA notified us of its decision not to continue to develop A-level archaeology, in addition to, as my hon. Friend said, history of art, classical civilisation and statistics, we opened urgent discussions with the other exam boards to see whether they were willing to offer those subjects.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, discussions with the exam board Pearson were positive. On 1 December, in a written statement, I announced that Pearson is to develop A-levels in history of art and statistics. Classical civilisation has already been developed by another exam board, OCR, and the specification has been accredited, so the A-level is available for schools to teach from next September.
Unfortunately, no exam board has been willing to develop a new A-level in archaeology for teaching from 2017. Other boards felt unable to overcome the challenges identified by AQA in relation to that particular qualification. The A-level will therefore no longer be available for students starting courses from September 2017. The option for any exam board to develop an A-level in archaeology, however, will remain open. I reassure my hon. Friend that students studying archaeology A-level now, for examination in 2017 and 2018, are not affected by AQA’s decision. They may continue to study the subject and to take the qualification.
My hon. Friend also expressed the concern that, were students no longer able to study archaeology A-level, they would not have the opportunity to be introduced to archaeology as a discipline or be encouraged to take the subject further. I disagree with that analysis. Recent archaeological finds such as that of Richard III and the site at Must Farm, with the wide coverage they received, can only serve to engage and enthuse a new generation of potential archaeologists.
Kirsten Oswald
I am an historian, rather than an archaeologist, and I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said. Does the Minister agree that initiatives such as Dig It! 2017 and the inaugural Scottish archaeology and heritage festival are important in encouraging people to take an interest in archaeology and perhaps pursuing it as a further course of study?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I apologise for arriving late to the debate. The Minister is showing that of course he is not a Visigoth, or a Goth of any sort. If any Minister can be relied on to protect an important subject, albeit a minority one, it is he. Therefore, and in the light of concerns expressed by people such as the staff, parents and students of Brockenhurst College in my constituency, where archaeology is taught extremely well, will he do his very best to redouble his efforts to persuade another board to take up that important subject?
Mr Gibb
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s kind comments. I suspect that his school, Brockenhurst, must therefore be a major contributor to the 26 A-level archaeology entries of 2016, and I congratulate it on its wide-ranging curriculum. I assure him that I left no stone unturned in my encouragement of other exam boards to adopt the subject, as with the languages with small cohorts—we were successful in persuading Pearson to take up those subjects, too.
It remains open for any board to produce a specification or an offer to take forward archaeology. We published the content because we want the subject to continue. We remain open to any exam boards wanting to set an archaeology A-level.
The changes we have made to the national curriculum will help to provide students with a greater understanding of the subjects that they study, feeding their enthusiasm for further study. In history, students are now required to have greater chronological understanding through the study of a wider range of historical periods, including more than one ancient civilisation. Enrichment activities, such as battlefield tours of the western front, in which 1,400 schools have participated to date, have enabled students to gain a deeper understanding of, and develop an interest in, significant historical periods.
Many universities will expect students to arrive already having had work or volunteering experience in museums or heritage sites, or having had practical experience in the field, where possible. Organisations such as the Council for British Archaeology, which runs almost 70 Young Archaeologists’ Club branches all over the UK, and industry magazines such as Current Archaeology offer a wealth of volunteering opportunities around the country.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the Government are fully committed—
Tim Loughton
The Minister and I have been in this place a long time. With great respect, if he says that he really has left no stone unturned in pursuit of an alternative, he would not make a good archaeologist. Can the Minister honestly say that he has gone to every examination board and made a case as strongly as has clearly been made for those other subjects rescued and saved by Pearson and that he really thinks nothing further can be done? If so, that will come as a huge blow to many people in the archaeology community in this country, and in years to come, his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government will find their plans for infrastructure projects seriously thwarted because he has not been able to produce trained archaeologists to do that vital job.
Mr Gibb
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s words, but with respect the absence of an A-level does not prevent students from taking the subject at university. As I explained earlier, universities are looking for a range of A-level subjects for entry into the degree subject. That is where his focus should be: on encouraging more young people to study archaeology at university.
We did leave no stone unturned. The exam boards have been facing financial issues to do with the cost of running examinations, and both OCR and AQA have dropped a range of subjects. Thanks to the work of Department for Education officials, we have managed to persuade Pearson to take on a number of subjects despite their small cohorts and the fact that they will not be lucrative for the exam board to pursue. We have to be realistic.
As I said, even now if an exam board came forward with an offer to continue to develop a new archaeology A-level, the Department would be responsive—our intention was not that the subject should be dropped at A-level. I am as disappointed as my hon. Friend about the decision, the root of which, however, is the low numbers who have been taking the subject in recent years: down to 26 in state-funded schools and 340 across the piece, compared with more than 80,000 taking the single most popular A-level, maths. That is the degree of difference between archaeology and the more popular subjects.
I hope that I have explained that the Government share the concerns about AQA’s decision to withdraw from archaeology, but I am confident that our wider A-level reforms will equip students with the knowledge, skills and drive that they need to succeed, whatever their chosen field.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of A level archaeology.
Exiting the EU: Businesses in Wales
(8 years 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
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of exiting the EU on businesses in Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. The effect that exiting the European Union will have on businesses in Wales is incredibly important, so I thank hon. Members for attending. This debate offers an opportunity to recognise the challenges ahead and gives the Government the chance to clarify their Brexit plan for Wales, on which I sincerely hope for some detail from the Minister.
Businesses in Wales have serious concerns that the Government do not have a plan for how Brexit will work for them. The success of our local small and medium-sized enterprises should be a concern for us all. When local businesses do well, they not only generate jobs and meet the needs of our communities, but fill up our high streets, liven up our towns and inspire the businesses of the future. Businesses throughout Wales are facing dangerous uncertainty and need the Government to publish their plan for Welsh Brexit.
One of the starkest consequences of exiting the EU for businesses in Wales could be a widening funding gap. Each year the EU contributes about £650 million in investment to Welsh social businesses and SMEs. Each pot of funding that has helped our businesses to thrive seems only to have been made possible by EU contributions. The social business growth fund, for example, contributes £4 million, but £2.3 million of that is from the EU. Similarly, the Wales business fund provides £136 million, but £76 million is from the EU. In addition, we have low-interest loans from the European Investment Bank, which have enabled companies and public bodies throughout Wales to thrive; the European regional development fund, which, among other projects, will provide £106 million for phase 2 of the south Wales metro; and Horizon 2020, which has been pivotal for Welsh universities. Without Government planning for Brexit, our Welsh businesses could see a serious dent in their funding.
To the Government’s credit, the Chancellor has announced that the Treasury will guarantee all multi-year EU business funding agreed before Brexit, but we need confirmation of the Government’s plan for EU funding that does not fit that criterion. The Government must also provide clarity about the status of the cumulative £2.7 billion post-2020 EU funding that has not yet been underwritten by the Treasury.
Our departure from the EU might also have an impact on the availability of training in Wales. Jobs Growth Wales, the Welsh Government scheme to get young people into work, will support the creation of 8,955 new job opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds over the next three years, and has only been made possible by the European social fund. Similarly, the Workways Plus scheme was made possible by £7.5 million from the European social fund. The scheme offers one-to- one mentoring to help long-term unemployed people become ready for work, gives an opportunity for people to gain new qualifications and finds paid positions for some.
Thousands of apprenticeships throughout Wales also rely on the EU and could be affected by our exit. The European Alliance for Apprenticeships, launched in July 2013, works closely with the Welsh Government to strengthen the quality, supply and image of apprenticeships. The alliance has been pivotal in securing and promoting opportunities throughout Wales.
Other consequences could include Britain leaving the single market or ending freedom of movement, which could affect businesses in Wales. Welsh universities, and the businesses reliant on them, would be particularly impacted by the end of freedom of movement. Each year more than 7,000 EU students enrol at universities throughout Wales. Were the Government to clarify their desired future migration arrangements, universities and associated businesses could plan accordingly. As things stand, the Government have given no clear indication of whether restrictions will be applied and the enrolment of EU students will decrease once we have left the European Union.
When this House debates the effect of exiting the EU, we sometimes allow the discussion to slip away from the reality on the ground, but I want to focus on the real impact that exiting the EU will have on one business in my constituency. It is one of the UK’s leading manufacturers in its industry. It has asked to remain anonymous, but kindly told me its concerns about the future, which I will share with the House. Its business is already being impacted by a downturn in construction activity and sizeable currency fluctuations. It tells me that the scale of potential change is vast, and that if widespread change materialises, the implications for resources and productivity are significant. For that industry-leading business, the level of uncertainty is of serious concern and must be addressed urgently.
This business employs people throughout the UK, not only in my constituency. It needs clarity on the form of Brexit, and it needs a plan. Specifically, it needs to know whether the Government plan to stay in the single market and the customs union. It tells me that it needs a commitment to ensuring that Britain can secure the right skills in the workforce. It also needs assurances that other policy voids, such as the one on energy efficiency, will be filled.
The bottom line is that business in Wales is crying out for a Brexit plan for Wales. When the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, in all likelihood the engine of Welsh business will not break down, but if the Government do not plan, it will slowly lose fuel and industries will come to a halt. Wales needs not a red, white and blue Brexit, as the Prime Minister suggested, but a comprehensive strategy to deliver the most secure outcome. Vague platitudes from the Government mean nothing and serve only to distract from the fact that, as things stand, we are being led into the night without a torch.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Norgine, a Dutch pharmaceutical company with a manufacturing facility in Hengoed, speaks for many businesses in Wales when it states that it wants a very soft Brexit?
Chris Elmore
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am getting that constantly from businesses in my constituency. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, has asked the Government 170 questions on how the UK will be shaped after we have left. To minimise that, I will ask the Government only three simple questions about the effect of exiting the EU on businesses in Wales. Will the Government guarantee to replace post-2020 EU funding that has not yet been underwritten by the Treasury? What steps will be taken to ensure that there is not a training shortage in Wales once we have left the EU? How will the Government involve business in Wales in their EU negotiations, and in representations made by the Secretary of State for International Trade?
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
May I add a fourth question to my hon. Friend’s helpful list of three? Will the Government come clean on whether deals have been done with companies such as Nissan in the north-east? In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), we have a large number of car manufacturers. For example, Vauxhall, although in England, and Toyota employ my constituents and those of my hon. Friend, and they depend on access to the single market.
Chris Elmore
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. In addition, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who could not attend today, includes the Ford plant that borders my constituency, and I would ask for similar guarantees on the automotive industry, because it has a direct effect in Ogmore.
I will be surprised if the Minister answers any of my questions, but I will conclude with a warning. Leaving the EU will inevitably have an effect on businesses in Wales, but the uncertainty that the Government have created is completely unnecessary. The Government need a plan for businesses in Wales, which they need to announce to the House for the attention of businesses in all our constituencies. The EU is embedded in businesses throughout Wales, and it contributes to funding, training and opportunity.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The focus is often on the big primes—my constituency has Airbus and Toyota—but I am particularly worried about the supply chain, especially if it supplies other parts of a business in Europe. In that case, companies might think that they are better placed there and relocate there, which would cause massive harm to all our areas.
Chris Elmore
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I echo his concern. I hear that constantly from small businesses, not only in my constituency but across the piece, living as I do in south Wales.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Do my hon. Friend and the Minister agree that there should be a level playing field? If certain motor companies are selected for special subsidies through under-the-table deals, that discriminates against other companies, whether they are big, like Airbus, or smaller suppliers. We need support for all exporters and subsidiary suppliers that will be confronted by tariffs, so that they can continue to compete effectively.
Chris Elmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which the Minister heard. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we need a fair playing field for all businesses across Wales and, indeed, the UK.
The opportunities that the EU offers will be sorely missed if the Government do not create better circumstances for businesses in a post-EU Wales. Businesses in Wales are clear that they are willing to adapt to a post-Brexit Britain, but they need certainty and assurances from the Government about what that will look like. As Members of Parliament, it is our duty to go back to our constituencies and tell businesses what they can anticipate from Parliament and the Government in the near future, but I cannot give them any assurances because this House has not been given any by the Government. I am not asking for a running commentary—I leave that privilege to the Foreign Secretary—and I am not hoping for a line-by-line strategy; I am asking only for a few select assurances, so that business in Wales can begin to plan.
I ask again: will the Government guarantee to replace the cumulative £2.7 billion post-2020 EU funding that has not been underwritten by the Treasury? What steps will be taken to ensure that there is not a training shortage in Wales? How will the Government involve businesses in Wales in their EU negotiations and representations made by the Secretary of State for International Trade? I suspect that the Government are unable to provide any answers, and I can only assume that is because they do not have any.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to be here today with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I represent a successful manufacturing and exporting constituency with many businesses that export both to and outside the European Union. The terms of trade that apply when those businesses deal with customers from outside the UK are extremely important for their day-to-day planning. As anyone who has run a business knows, certainty is precious and fundamental to the ease of running any business, but the one thing that we lack as far as terms of trade are concerned is certainty. That is a fundamental barrier to running a business in the UK with ease. The Opposition will therefore continue to press the Government to provide more certainty for businesses, so they can start to plan for an imminent massive change.
That change is not just about terms of trade; the regulatory mechanisms that apply to any modern business and its area of operation are also vital. The automotive sector has already been referred to. When I was the automotive Minister, it was important that we had clear environmental regulatory standards that were agreed internationally, because the automotive sector operates internationally. Some people talk about “quickie divorces,” but those will not help businesses that need to plan ahead—to develop new cars to new environmental standards, for example. The international environmental standards that will apply need to be made clear to businesses, but at the moment we have no idea what the mechanism for establishing such standards will be in a post-EU world.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Does that not mean that certainty for businesses in Wales and across the United Kingdom will be conditional on a commitment to a transitional arrangement? We must not have a situation where the article 50 negotiations come to an end in 2019 and we fall off a cliff edge, because that would cause so much uncertainty, not just about tariffs but about the regulatory environment to which my hon. Friend refers.
Ian C. Lucas
Indeed. It seems increasingly likely that there will be some kind of transitional phase. I have talked about one set of standards—the environmental standards in the automotive sector—but different regulatory regimes will apply to all sorts of businesses right across the piece. Constructing the mechanisms that will apply to businesses and our relationship with the European Union after we leave will involve a huge amount of work. Regimes will have to be defined for areas such as financial services, broadcasting and pharmaceuticals, and those will have to apply very soon. If those systems are going to be in place within the next two years, we need to provide clarity to businesses that are making investment decisions now. Businesses in Wrexham that I represent, such as Wockhardt and Ipsen Biopharm, which are both exporting pharmaceutical companies, need to know what our relationships will be. If they do not, they may begin to reflect on whether the business environment in this country will be as effective, successful and supportive for them in the future.
My objective for post-Brexit Britain and Wales is for the UK to be as close as possible to membership of the single market, while retaining the right to devise and implement immigration policy. If I were negotiating, that is what I would want. I would love the Government to provide that sort of clarity about its negotiating position. It is really important that we have access to the single market. Membership of the EU and the single market has benefited the Wrexham economy hugely—it has become very much an exporting economy—but the lesson of the referendum is that we have failed to manage migration to the UK. I am clear that we must apply a managed migration policy for EU citizens.
Wayne David
Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a need to differentiate between skilled and unskilled labour?
Ian C. Lucas
Absolutely. One of my questions for the Minister is: what migration system will apply to EU citizens? We already have a system in place for citizens from outside the EU, and I imagine that if we jump off the cliff that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) referred to, EU citizens will, by default, be put in the same position as people who come to the UK from outside the EU. However, I have seen reports in the press that the Prime Minister thinks that the points-based immigration system for people from outside the EU that the Labour party introduced when it was in power is not restrictive enough. I would really like clarity on that question from the Government, because we need to have a system in place. In my constituency, we have really important multinational manufacturing businesses such as Kellogg’s and Solvay, whose members of staff travel regularly from mainland Europe to the UK. Those businesses need to know what system will be put in place for them to manage that.
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend makes an important point. For Airbus, for example, if a wing is not fully finished in Broughton but needs to be fitted in Toulouse or Bremen, they will send workers, chase the wing and carry on the work that needs to be done. We clearly must not be in a position where they will have to apply for some sort of work permit to do that—that would be ludicrous—but we just do not know what is going to happen.
Ian C. Lucas
As my hon. Friend makes clear, there will be a system in due course and the issue will be managed, but we have no idea what the system will be. More importantly, the businesses that will be required to operate it have no idea. This is a massive task. If we are to have a new system—not the points-based immigration system that applies to citizens from outside the EU—the Government must tell business what that will look like, what requirements and burdens they will impose on employers and where responsibility lies.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a strong speech.
Individuals are also incredibly affected, including constituents of mine who have found that contracts they were meant to be working on in other EU member states in collaborations, and vice versa, have been cancelled because of the precautionary principle, given the uncertainty about what will happen and the risk of not being able to work on the projects in the next five or six years.
Ian C. Lucas
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The clock is ticking on all these issues—I will sit down shortly because several of my hon. Friends want to make speeches—but what is really ticking is the clock for the Government. It is their responsibility to implement the policy they wish to see on these important matters, which could ultimately undermine confidence in business in our communities and affect the prosperity of our constituents.
We need a bit of straightforward clarity from the Government about the mechanics of what the new systems will look like, and we need engagement from the Government. That is not just about listening but about beginning to tell business what its responsibilities will be and what post-Brexit Wales will look like. That responsibility rests firmly with the Government, who have brought the situation about, and that must be made clear to our constituents. We need to have that clarity as soon as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. We find ourselves in a situation whereby there is a real risk that the UK Government will set sail on a course that is counter to the interests of Wales. The way in which we exit the EU is clearly still an ongoing fight. My priority is to argue for the least damaging option for the Welsh economy, which includes campaigning for the best possible outcomes for businesses across Wales and in my constituency.
Plaid Cymru has been united and consistent in its campaign to maintain membership of the single market and customs union from the very beginning. That is by far the least damaging option for the Welsh economy, first because of the wide-reaching benefits that being a single market and customs union member has for trade in Wales as an exporting economy. Of course, Wales has an annual goods trade surplus of £5 million whereas the UK has a deficit. Secondly, continued membership would enable Wales to qualify for certain cross-border and transnational programmes that promote research and innovation, both of which are integral to a dynamic and entrepreneurial business community.
The last report of the Federation of Small Businesses’ UK small business index showed that, for the first time in four years, more businesses were pessimistic than positive about the future. That was the third quarter in a row in which there had been a downturn in confidence. A glimmer of hope is that 55% of the businesses stated they wanted to grow in the coming year, which shows that ambition is still strong. Businesses want to prosper and, of course, they will do that only if they have the nurture they require, which only Government can provide.
Having spoken to various stakeholders in my constituency, it is clear that the certainty and stability of the UK market has taken a hit. They are very much alert to the fact that the forthcoming negotiations will have long-term implications across the country. The Federation of German Industry in the UK, which represents German companies in the UK, has representatives in my constituency who are particularly concerned about the loss of confidence in the UK market. Among those companies, CeKa, long-established in Pwllheli, has expressed clear apprehension about the volatile exchange rate. It is also concerned about cost increases from possible new tariff and non-tariff barriers. The Government should be doing all they can to mitigate those uncertainties now. We could achieve that by remaining part of the single market and customs union.
SMEs are the backbone of the Welsh economy and, with the right support, they can be adaptable, responsive and resilient. When handled well, they have every potential to flourish as one of our most important assets in Wales. We need to put a support framework in place now and do everything we can to help them weather the storm.
Continuing with the German theme, Plaid Cymru has long emphasised the need for a Welsh “Mittelstand”—that is the term used to describe indigenous medium-sized firms in German-speaking countries. Such companies are locally grounded but successful exporters, with strong brands in specialised niches and with long-term growth potential. They characterise one of the strongest and most resilient global economies.
Another area of concern for a company in my constituency, which is of substantial significance to the local economy, is the uncertainty surrounding that which will replace the rural development programme and, for that matter, the common agricultural policy. South Caernarfon Creameries employs 130 staff and also has 130 suppliers selling Welsh milk from Welsh farms. I emphasise that it collects milk from farms across Wales. As a result, the creamery generates at least £30 million a year for the local economy. It has recently expanded as a result of moneys provided by the EU and is planning on doing so once more. Since the vote to leave the European Union, however, the Government have failed to shed any light on how they intend to compensate for the millions of pounds lost.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is interesting to hear how South Caernarfon Creameries, which is of great significance to the rural economy in the hon. Lady’s constituency, has relied on money generated by the EU for expansion. Will she join me in expressing concern about the way in which the common agricultural policy is repatriated and implemented in the eventuality of the UK leaving the EU?
Liz Saville Roberts
I share the hon. Lady’s concern, not least because the National Farmers Union has presented evidence to the Welsh Assembly that indicates that if the money that reaches Wales from the common agricultural policy were to be Barnettised—to go through the Barnett formula—that would result in a 40% decrease in the money reaching Wales.
To return to the creamery issue, we have yet to see any real clarity on how that will be addressed, and that is of considerable importance to anyone involved in agriculture and the rural economy. As we know, Wales is a net beneficiary from the EU to the tune of £79 per individual a year. Businesses must not be left second-guessing where their future lies and how they can plan ahead.
I will refer specifically to business rates. Businesses in Gwynedd have experienced an average increase of 8.9%, which I believe is the second highest after the county of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who will address us anon. I join my Assembly colleagues in pressing Labour’s Welsh Government to investigate all available powers to ensure that business rates do not penalise businesses. For example, they could use index business rate multipliers to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index; variable multipliers, so that small businesses are not disproportionately taxed; three-yearly revaluations, because Gwynedd waited eight years for its most recent revaluation, which had a considerable impact on the increase; and an equitable valuations appeals process. In addition, I strongly urge the Welsh Labour Government to consider adopting Plaid Cymru’s business rates support scheme, which would be likely to benefit tens of thousands of businesses across Wales.
Ian C. Lucas
I want to make the point that the delay in the revaluation was because of a decision by the UK Conservative Government. It was nothing to do with the Welsh Labour Government.
Liz Saville Roberts
I emphasise that business rates are devolved and that there is great potential for the Welsh Government to use that as a means to support business. Businesses are seeing 100% increases in their business rates valuations under the present arrangements, and that is extremely difficult for them. Plaid Cymru’s scheme would mean that all businesses valued at £15,000 or less would benefit, and those valued at under £10,000 would not pay anything at all. That would be likely to affect 80% of businesses in Wales, and I think some 70,000 would end up paying no business rates at all, which, knowing my local businesses, I am sure would be greatly welcomed.
Businesses are the backbone of the Welsh economy, and with the right support they can be resilient. To enable that, the UK Government need to come clean on their strategy and Labour’s Welsh Government need to use their devolved powers creatively and boldly to do everything to enable Welsh businesses to weather the storm. Every possible safety net must be put in place to mitigate the potentially tempestuous period in front of us, and both the UK Government and the Welsh Government should have a plan to ensure the long-term resilience of Wales.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. As has already been said, there is great uncertainty about Brexit among the business fraternity across Wales. If article 50 is, in fact, triggered on 31 March 2017, the remaining EU27 countries will determine the deal that we have to live with, no matter what has been said in this Chamber and elsewhere. There is a natural concern that that deal will be in the interests of those 27 countries and others that are not leaving the EU.
There is the spectre of tariffs. Some people have said there will not be tariffs because we import more than we export. However, only Germany and the Netherlands have a net trade surplus with us, so other countries may have an incentive to impose tariffs. Indeed, German car makers may want to block, for example, Japanese car makers that use Britain as a platform to launch into Europe. Of course, that is why there has been an under-the-table deal with Nissan, which has been referred to, while several other large conglomerates have naturally come forward to ask for money to offset prospective tariffs.
As I said when I intervened, it is particularly important that Welsh businesses and all people relying on exports to the EU have a level playing field and subsidies and support, so that they can continue their terms of trade after Brexit—assuming that Brexit goes ahead. My constituency of Swansea West is part of the wider Swansea Bay city region, where 25,000 people’s jobs involve exporting to Europe. Alongside that, there is obviously a farming community that is helped by the common agricultural policy, which may be under threat, and we also benefit from billions of pounds of convergence funding. I am looking to the Minister to provide assurances on all those things—namely, the level playing field, the matched convergence funding and, indeed, what the farmers may need in CAP.
A big employer in my area is Swansea University, which is an engine and an asset for economic growth. It has now doubled in size with the new bay campus in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). It is a jewel in the crown of engineering research and development capability across Europe, and the problem is that we may not be able to maximise our opportunities of utilising that; it is not only an asset for young people to grow and learn, but for producing innovative products for export.
Stephen Kinnock
The European Investment Bank played a critical role in funding the bay campus, which is indeed one of the jewels in the crown of Welsh higher education. Does my hon. Friend agree that some assurance on how to deal with our exiting from the European Investment Bank is desperately needed from the Government?
Geraint Davies
As my hon. Friend knows, the three primary sources of funding for the bay campus were the European Union, the European Investment Bank and the Welsh Government. We need clarity about those future relationships and future funding. Thank goodness it has actually been built. Clearly, if Brexit had occurred a couple of years ago, we would be in all sorts of problems. We are looking for assurances from the Minister on tie-ups with the network of universities across Europe in the future, on possible funding streams and on support for exports that are driven by innovation from that campus. My hon. Friend knows the campus is linked with Rolls-Royce, Tata and other big manufacturers. The idea was to have an integrated approach to export delivery, and we do not want to put that in jeopardy.
There is great concern among the business community across Wales about the prospective falling consumer demand following Brexit and in the light of the autumn statement, which showed that an extra year of austerity would be inflicted upon us and that Britain’s debt would grow to 90% of GDP. Incidentally, it was half that—45%—when the last Labour Government were in power in 2010. The debt is completely out of control. The Chancellor’s Brexit evaluation is that we will all have to pay an extra £1,000 in future taxes. On top of that, the inflation that has occurred owing to the falling value of the pound is equal to a 5% cut in everybody’s income, which they then cannot spend in local shops and on domestically grown products. There are concerns, and we want reassurance, and the business community wants those assurances without further ado.
Hon. Members may know that my position is that the triggering of article 50 should be delayed until next November, after the French elections in May and the German elections in October, to provide an opportunity for real negotiation up to that point. People should then have the final say on whether it is a good deal or not, with the default position of staying in the EU. As time moves on, not only the business community but everyone will see that the balance of costs and benefits is heavily weighted towards costs, and in my considered view, we are better off staying in. People should have the final say because, frankly, they were given false information when they voted in the first instance.
Assuming for a moment that we trigger article 50, we need those assurances from the Minister now. Businesses desperately want to plan for a prosperous future, rather than an uncertain future of fewer sales.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing this important debate.
The uncertainties of leaving the European Union are hazardous and wide ranging. Structural funding, environmental protections and workers’ rights, trade with the EU and the impact on the economy and growth are all areas of concern for the businesses and people of Wales. The lack of clarity is both frustrating and worrying, as the absence of a plan creates an inertia that stalls economic growth and investment. Businesses in Wales have already suffered from the impact of austerity and poor economic UK growth since 2010.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that cumulative potential output growth will be 2.4 per- centage points lower than it would otherwise have been in 2021 had the referendum not happened. Growth forecasts from the consultancy company Oxford Economics have been downgraded in all regions, with growth in Wales expected to be about 0.25 percentage points lower than the pre-referendum forecast.
Structural funding has played an important role in the regeneration of a post-industrial Wales. The statistics may suggest that it has struggled to achieve its aim of increasing GDP and wealth, but that is not the whole story. When I visit communities across my constituency and the wider region, I find vibrancy, tenacity and life, despite hardship and economic decline. In the last round of funding, projects financed through our membership of the European Union across Neath Port Talbot have helped to launch 485 businesses, support 7,300 people into work, create 1,355 jobs, provide 14,870 qualifications and enable close to 5,000 people to complete an EU-funded apprenticeship—all in that county borough alone.
Projects such as the £22 million valleys regional park have built the tourism infrastructure of my constituency, and more and more visitors are coming to enjoy the beautiful scenery of Gnoll country park and the industrial heritage of Aberdulais Falls. The regional essential skills scheme has helped thousands of people to acquire the competencies necessary to return to work. Neath Port Talbot has also been a lead partner on the pioneering transitional employment initiative, Workways.
I must pay tribute at this point to the leader of Neath Port Talbot Council, Ali Thomas, who last night announced that he will be standing down after many years of service. In fact, he took over from the previous leader, Derek Vaughan, who went on to become our Labour MEP. They are two great men of Neath.
Stephen Doughty
Does my hon. Friend agree that, even with the prospect of the European Parliament seats for Wales being abolished, Derek Vaughan continues to fight for Wales and for all of us to secure the best deals on European funding for our constituencies?
Christina Rees
I absolutely agree that Degsy, as he is known in Neath, is continuing to fight Wales’s corner. He is vice-chair of the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee, so he has great influence in Europe.
Neath Port Talbot has been the lead partner on the pioneering transitional employment initiative, Workways, which has helped to tackle barriers that prevent individuals from finding or returning to employment by supporting the job search, CV writing and interview skills, and access to training. The Workways project would never have happened without EU structural funds. It received a contribution of £16.7 million towards its overall costs. The scheme is held in such high regard that a second phase has been funded—Workways Plus—which began in April this year and will support at least a further 1,000 people into employment.
Swansea University’s science and innovation campus, the Bay campus, which has had a substantial impact on Neath and the region, simply would not have happened without the £95 million of funding received from the European Union. Derek Vaughan’s legacy before he left as leader of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council was to make sure that the campus was just inside the council area.
Christina Rees
And inside the Aberavon constituency, as my hon. Friend points out. Neath Port Talbot is also home to a company called SPECIFIC, which uses coated steel to make world-leading, innovative technologies that produce, store and release energy. SPECIFIC is hugely concerned about leaving Europe, not least because of the essential funding it has received, without which it probably would not exist.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the issue of steel, which is at the heart of the SPECIFIC project, the Welsh Government have taken action to deliver £8 million that will be spent on reducing energy costs at the Port Talbot plant, and £4 million for skills and training. That is precisely the sort of industrial strategy that we need. By contrast, the UK Government continue to be completely asleep at the wheel.
Christina Rees
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, with which I agree wholeheartedly. Not only will SPECIFIC lose its funding, but it will lose its potential market: it could sell its innovative products to Europe. Also, 16,000 farmers gain direct subsidies from the common agricultural policy. More than 90% would go bust without continuing subsidies from the UK Government via Europe.
Those examples illustrate direct investment across the public and voluntary sectors, but we must note the derived benefits to the private sector and all forms of business. Projects such as Swansea University’s Bay campus have supported hundreds of local businesses—contractors, subcontractors, cafés, shops, fuel stations and bus companies; the list goes on. Those who have been on an EU-funded training scheme have taken up employment with local businesses, which in turn have benefited from a revitalised, skilled workforce. The businesses that make up our tourism industry have been safeguarded and developed through additional investment in projects that have encouraged visitors to the area, who have been renting accommodation, eating out in restaurants and pubs, and enjoying the activities and facilities run by local businesses.
The triggering of article 50 is a leap into the unknown. Any process or deal on exiting the EU needs full scrutiny. The Government need to be held to account for their decision, whether it is for a hard Brexit or a red, white and blue Brexit. Whichever Brexit we end up with, we need fully to consider the implications of a Britain outside the single market or the customs union. The British Retail Consortium has already suggested that if we rely on World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs, the price of meat will rise by 27%, and of clothing and footwear by 16%. Those are costs that my constituents can ill afford during the good times, without the loss of funding and the threat of unemployment on top of that. What will the Government do to protect the 100,000 jobs in Wales that depend on our trade with Europe?
Beyond the fear of losing structural funding and trade with the EU, my constituents have concerns about the protection of workers’ rights. We have already seen this Tory Government going at it hammer and tongs over assent to the nasty and pernicious Trade Union Bill. How can we trust them on workers’ rights? I am simply not convinced that the Prime Minister and her Government will be committed to protecting workers’ rights after Brexit and the repeal of EU employment laws. As to whether EU regulations on businesses bring costs or benefits, I appreciate that there are arguments on both sides, and only time will reveal which of those opinions is true.
All in all, this is a troubling time for the people of Wales, and our businesses are no different. Some 95% of businesses in Wales employ fewer than 10 people, and it is those micro and part-time businesses that will suffer the most from poor UK growth, the absence of structural funds, the lack of a single market and the disappearance of EU regulations.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), our shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, has said that we need to see the Government’s plan before article 50 is triggered. We need sufficient detail of the plan, so that the Exiting the European Union Committee and other parliamentary Committees can scrutinise it. We need enough detail so that the Office for Budget Responsibility can cost the plan. We need the devolved nations, such as Wales, to have input, and we need consensus, so that the plan will work for 100% of people, not just 52% or 48%. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on the plan.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to follow the excellent speeches by colleagues from Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing this debate. We have all been listening to and hearing the concerns of businesses in our constituencies, which is why we are here today. I hope the Minister will have some helpful responses to the concerns that we have raised.
I have been listening to businesses in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth. I have spoken to small, large and medium-sized businesses and to individuals who have raised concerns with me at surgeries, on the doorstep and on many other occasions. There is a lot of concern. The issue is not minor; it comes up again and again. There is a willingness to get on and make things work, but there are a lot of questions and a lot of uncertainty.
Having listened to all those concerns, I am not prepared to support a blank cheque for the Government in activating article 50, particularly when there is so little information available about the plan. Members may be interested to know that the Brexit Secretary has been speaking to the Brexit Committee while we have been sitting; he has confirmed that no plan will be published until February at the latest, because, apparently, a lot of research and policy work needs to be done. He says there will be a transitional deal only if necessary. That is concerning. When in February? How late? If we are talking about activating article 50 on 31 March, we will not get any clarity on the Government’s plans until very late in February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
I do not think there is anything new in what the Secretary of State has said. Did not the Opposition accept the argument that article 50 will be triggered by the end of March on production of a plan before that?
Stephen Doughty
If the Minister checks the voting list, he will see which way I voted on that matter. I am speaking about my own views on this issue and I certainly have a great deal of concern about the lack of information.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend also accept that even if we did agree to this last minute plan, whatever it is, once article 50 is triggered the 27 EU countries will decide to give us what they want, not what is in the plan?
Stephen Doughty
I have a great many concerns about the negotiating process, but I want to turn to three areas of particular concern that businesses have raised with me: regional funding, the single market and the situation for universities.
It is worth reflecting, as some colleagues have, on the importance of the scale on which businesses engage in the single market. There are 191,000 jobs dependent on EU trade, and that affects everything from steel to the high-tech products in my constituency; 500 firms in Wales export more than £5 billion annually to other EU member states and 450 firms from other EU member states, located in Wales, employ more than 50,000 people.
Several hon. Members have spoken about funding and I will come on to that, but, without referencing specific names, the sorts of things I have been told about include workers’ rights to travel to engage in cross-European projects; contracts, which I mentioned in an intervention; and concerns about research collaboration and major long-term projects being put at risk. The message is very clear that businesses do not want a hard Brexit, if there is to be a Brexit. They want it to be as soft as possible and are particularly concerned about tariffs and access to the single market. Those concerns are constantly raised with me.
Businesses were positive with me about the work that the Welsh Labour Government are doing to try to provide some certainty and optimism in the economy in uncertain times. There is particular praise for the work of the First Minister and Economy Secretary, who went to the United States and Japan to stand up for Welsh businesses and the links that we have with those two markets. Whether it is a case of fighting for funding for the south Wales metro or for other projects, the Welsh Assembly Government are trying to ensure that some positive things happen during the uncertainty.
There is also continued investment in infrastructure projects and building, including a lot going on in Cardiff at the moment. There is the city centre redevelopment; we have plans for new stations; we have an enterprise zone, where there is a lot of investment; and—to give credit—there is some degree of cross-party agreement on a city deal. It is vital that such investment in infrastructure and business should continue, particularly now while there is a lot of uncertainty.
Wayne David
We understand that the Government have given some assurances about the continuation of what would have been European funding. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that the Government are also talking about changing expenditure priorities?
Stephen Doughty
I do. I have yet to be convinced about the certainty on levels of funding, let alone the sectors. That will be greatly worrying to many in my constituency. It is worth reflecting on what the Office for Budget Responsibility said in the economic and fiscal outlook published in November: that as a result of the referendum decision, the potential output growth will be 2.4 percentage points lower than it would have otherwise been in 2021 without the referendum. As to the impact on Wales, the House of Commons Library briefing mentions that there could be
“lower business investment…the impact of a less open economy on productivity…a reduction in investment in research and development”
and
“costs associated with adjustments to new regulations or new markets”.
There will obviously be costs and changes: how are they to be minimised?
On regional funding, €5 billion for Wales is planned for 2014 to 2020, and potentially £2.7 billion post-2020. I still do not feel that we have had the guarantees from the Treasury. Why does that matter? It matters for specific projects such as the south Wales metro, which is vital for people’s ability to get around, do business, get to work and take advantage of opportunities in my constituency and the whole south Wales area.
We might be able to achieve those things in part outside the south Wales metro project. I have supported, for example, the proposals for a St Mellons parkway station, which could be funded by other means. There is a good degree of cross-party agreement about the importance of Network Rail and Department for Transport funding for it. However, fundamentally, the south Wales metro has the potential to be a transformative scheme for the south Wales economy. I am pleased that the First Minister was in Brussels arguing for the £110 million-worth of funding. The European Commission was very clear in saying that it could not comment about what would happen after the UK leaves. Such uncertainty is causing concern, so perhaps the Minister will provide some assurances—particularly about that project, which is so crucial to the economy of south Wales.
I have mentioned concerns about access to the single market, which will affect all businesses. I should be particularly worried if we were to consider putting tariffs on goods produced in Wales. The First Minister has made it clear that that is a red line for him. It would affect industries such as the steel industry in my constituency.
I have spoken many times in this Chamber about companies such as Celsa, based on my patch. It does significant amounts of exporting. It is a European company from Catalonia in Spain and works across the European Union. Forty per cent. of direct sales of British and Welsh steel go to the EU. That is similar to the overall total—41% of total goods exports from Wales go to the EU. What assurances can the Minister give to companies such as Celsa that export so much to the EU, let alone other places? What tariffs might they face in the future? What additional trade restrictions might they face?
We have heard a lot of talk about Airbus, which also has a major facility, Airbus Defence and Space, in a neighbouring constituency to mine, Newport West, where a number of my constituents work. Concerns are being expressed about European collaboration on space projects. High tech is an important growth industry in which the UK has been investing more. I should hate such jobs to be lost from our communities—let alone the wider aerospace industry in south Wales.
I want finally to discuss universities. The total value of future research income to Cardiff University, from the seventh framework programme and Horizon 2020 up to July 2016, was £23.5 million, with further applications in the pipeline of up to £15.7 million; work from the European structural fund was worth £23.6 million, plus a potential £35.2 million of projects in development. Those are significant sums.
To give an idea of the sorts of projects involved, I should say that they include the Cardiff University brain research imaging centre, which is doing pioneering work on dementia, multiple sclerosis and other neurological conditions. We should be proud that that work is going on in our capital city. Many researchers from my constituency work in and around the university. What if such things are to be put at risk? I am hearing a lot of concern from the university sector in my area, from individual workers and universities. What assurances can the Minister give?
Christina Rees
There is uncertainty about whether the excellent Erasmus programme in which students from Wales can study in Europe will continue. It has benefited many students from my constituency, and, I am sure, from across Wales.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: 18% of Cardiff University’s home undergraduates are defined as internationally mobile—so they have taken part in Erasmus or one of the other types of exchange schemes, often with other European countries. That adds to their value—their opportunities to contribute to the global economy in the future and bring value to the economy in Wales. That is even before we get on to considering the contribution of international students, researchers and experts to our university sector in Wales. What assurances can the Minister give that those opportunities will not be lost in future for the Welsh university sector?
I have outlined three key areas about which concerns have been raised with me. I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurances and guidance for those who have expressed them. It is clear that this is an uncertain time for all involved. I am not happy for the Government to be given a blank cheque over the negotiations. I want to secure the best deal for businesses, individuals and the academic sector in my constituency and Wales.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for obtaining the debate, which has been incredibly interesting. The speeches were all notable and it is a vital topic.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). It is an extraordinary fact that there is such a lack of strategy and clarity about the UK Government’s plans. Clearly, Scotland voted unequivocally to remain in the EU, and that is our focus, but for our friends in Wales I reflect on the wise words of the hon. Lady, who talked about a tempestuous period before us. Her focus, and that of other hon. Members who spoke, is rightly on securing the best possible outcomes for businesses in Wales. Instead of the clarity that we would want from the UK Government in this context, we continue to hear such phrases as “Brexit means Brexit”, “have your cake and eat it” and “red, white and blue Brexit”. It is like “The Great British Bake Off” or some kind of punchline. It is just not funny; in fact, it is highly irresponsible.
It is quite extraordinary and very disappointing that before negotiations have even begun, the UK Government appear to have given up on retaining membership of the single market. I understand well the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. Small and medium-sized businesses, which the hon. Member for Ogmore talked about, are watching this kind of debate carefully because they are looking and hoping for clarity and reassurance. Although I have the greatest respect for the Minister, I fear he cannot possibly deliver that because essentially there is no plan.
For all the devolved Governments, it is vital that there is real and proper engagement on the EU, for business reasons, social reasons and other reasons across our society. The hon. Member for Ogmore highlighted a business that had already raised concerns about negative impacts and rightly warned that platitudes are simply no substitute for plans. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke of uncertainty among businesses of all sizes about the implications of Brexit. We also heard a sensible question from the hon. Member for Ogmore about whether Welsh businesses will be involved in negotiations. I will wait with bated breath to hear the Minister’s response on that.
There is a significant issue with the involvement of the Scottish Government, demonstrated by our long, unanswered call to the telephone hotline. There is a dearth of real dialogue and opportunity to input. For Wales and Welsh businesses, that attitude—which is in stark contrast with the clear and planned proactive engagement of Scotland’s First Minister—rightly rings alarm bells, as the Brexit vacuum continues. That cannot be more starkly illustrated than by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth’s helpful comment that it is likely to be February before the UK Government publish any plan.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) spoke of the need for certainty, which keeps coming up. Businesses are the backbone of the Welsh economy and can be resilient, with the right support. They undeniably require certainty and clarity, which are simply missing. The UK Government must come clean. We want to hear something from the Minister on the Government’s strategy for exiting the EU. The Welsh Government need to put into place a framework of support to ensure they are doing everything possible to help business weather the storm. It seems that the ideological Brexiteers who are sitting right at the heart of power are preventing us from seeing this plan from the UK Government. All we hear are bull-headed assurances that a land of milk and honey awaits—it does not, and businesses can see that.
The hon. Member for Wrexham described what his Brexit negotiating position would be. His particular focus was on migration. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) spoke about skilled migration. I was pleased to hear a mention of universities from the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Croydon Central. Universities have significant concerns. I have had several meetings with representatives of higher education institutions.
Geraint Davies
Although I did have an association with Croydon Central, I am the MP for Swansea West.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention.
I have met several university representatives, both before and after 23 June. They express particular concerns about the sustainability of courses and the finance of universities. Those issues would be hugely compounded by the reported UK Government plans in respect of overseas students. That is a huge issue economically, socially and in educational terms, and the UK Government need to get a grip on that.
More generally, all of us here need to be clear on what we mean when we talk about migrants and migration. It is vital that, as politicians, we never leave any doubt in people’s minds about the value we place on people from elsewhere who have chosen to make their homes alongside us. The First Minister of Scotland made that very clear when she spoke about the EU nationals who have chosen to make Scotland their home. She said:
“You remain welcome here. Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.”
It is undoubtedly the case in Wales, as it is elsewhere in these nations, that people who have come here more recently, as well as longer ago, have made a significant contribution to our society and continue to do so. Specifically, they have contributed to business, including universities, social care, healthcare, small and medium-sized enterprises and big business. All those things are vital to the Welsh economy.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd expressed a concern that the UK Government need to act in the best interests of Wales. She emphasised the importance for Wales of single market membership and customs union membership. She also mentioned that the business confidence figure for Wales has fallen, despite the great ambitions of the business community. Business is concerned. She gave a striking example of the potential significant impact on important companies such as South Caernarfon Creameries.
It has been quite challenging for me to sit here today and hear hon. Members trying desperately to look on the bright side. There really is not much to look forward to, should we leave the EU. It is no wonder that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Swansea West seek reassurance. It seems clear to me, as someone who represents a constituency where 74% of people voted to remain, that there are vital benefits to remaining in the EU, as the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) said. She spoke of workers’ rights, which are very important, as well as economic benefits and social protections. I echo those sentiments.
I also highlight the importance of cultural and business benefits, which we could lose if we leave the EU. Some 99% of Welsh businesses are SMEs. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd emphasised the need to adopt or adapt systems similar to those favoured in Germany to ensure the potential of those businesses is achieved. She is focused on achieving the best deal for Wales, for her constituents and for Welsh business.
My focus is on protecting Scotland’s interests. Of course, our aim to remain in the EU is strong and unequivocal. The UK vote means that Scotland faces being taken out of the EU against our will. That would be unacceptable and democratically unsustainable. Just as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd focuses on protecting Wales, it is right that my focus and that of my party is on considering and pursuing all possible steps to ensure Scotland’s continuing relationship with the EU.
To conclude, it is essential that we get far more from the UK Government than the limbo, woolly words and clunky slogans we have had so far. For all our businesses, all our communities and all the people living in them, it is essential that the UK Government start to have real, meaningful discussions with the devolved Governments and much more constructive discussions with our friends in Europe.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing his first Westminster Hall debate on this important subject and on the powerful case he made. He was right to underline the huge uncertainty for businesses in Wales at the moment and the role that the Welsh Government have played in utilising EU funds to support jobs in Wales through initiatives such as Jobs Growth Wales, which, as he outlined, will lead to 8,955 new job opportunities. He also highlighted the work to support initiatives such as the south Wales metro, Horizon 2020 and the support the Welsh Government have given to universities.
We have heard from a number of hon. Members from across Wales, who have made clear the risks of our departure from the EU for businesses in their constituencies. It is really positive to see the number of constituencies represented by Opposition Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore, for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). That is in complete contrast with the lack of Members on the Government Benches, which I hope is not an indication of their view on businesses in Wales.
It is important that we highlight the risk of the Government’s lack of certainty and clarity about their post-exit plans and the huge uncertainty that is causing businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham underlined, businesses and investors hate uncertainty, yet at the moment that is all we have from this Government. That reflects the views expressed in discussions that I have had with businesses in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly highlighted the view of Norgine in Hengoed in his constituency and its hope for a soft Brexit. That message is repeated by businesses across Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside highlighted the work that Airbus does, the various plants that it has across Europe and the need for flexibility to travel. When I met Airbus representatives some weeks ago, they talked about workers who may go to European plants for two hours, two days or even two weeks—it is very uncertain, so there is a need for flexibility.
My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West and for Aberavon highlighted the role that universities play and particularly research and development, the risk to future funding and the uncertainty that that is causing at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath highlighted the absence of a plan for exiting the EU and the uncertainty that that is causing for business.
Christina Rees
Does my hon. Friend agree that once article 50 is triggered, all the MEPs will be involved in the negotiations because they will have to have a vote at the end of the negotiations to ratify the proposal before it goes to the European Council to be ratified, so it would be fair for all Members of this House to be involved in the negotiations as well?
Gerald Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It underlines the position that we are in: we have no direction from the Government. They say that Brexit means Brexit and they are not willing to give a running commentary on what is happening. We understand that up to a point, but we are not asking for a running commentary. As hon. Members know, we are asking for the UK Government’s direction of travel, but unfortunately that has not been forthcoming.
I pay tribute to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on the work of the Wales MEP Derek Vaughan, who continues to stand up and speak out for Wales. I also agree with my hon. Friend’s comments on the Welsh Government continuing to promote Wales and secure funding for infrastructure projects. We heard just today the announcement about a range of large-scale infrastructure projects taking place across Wales.
The last time that I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate from the Front Bench, I said:
“The Government have a clear and pressing duty to reduce…uncertainty. We have all heard of investment decisions that have been delayed and of businesses that are genuinely worried for their futures. People voted to leave, but they did not vote to damage our economy, so the Government need to step up and set out their plans more clearly to deliver the clarity and business confidence we so badly need.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 40WH.]
I still stand by every word of that today. Despite the time that has passed, neither the Minister nor the Government have done anything to give businesses any clarity or certainty, leaving people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore so clearly pointed out, in the dark about their futures, their careers and their businesses.
At the recent Welsh questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) quite reasonably asked the Minister:
“Can he tell us whether his officials have made any estimate of how many jobs in Wales will be lost if the UK leaves the single market and what he and his Government are planning to do about it?”
We are elected to Parliament to represent our constituencies and their interests. As the Opposition, it is our democratic duty to scrutinise and challenge the Government. That was not an unfair, partisan or trick question from my hon. Friend. It was asking what assessment the Minister’s Department has made of the biggest issue facing our country since the second world war and what plans the Government have to help mitigate the negative effects. However, the Minister replied:
“I am somewhat disturbed by the hon. Lady’s comments. Time and again, I hear Opposition parties talking down the Welsh economy.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 1509-1510.]
That was not an appropriate response. In fact, it was quite shameful, and it does a disservice to the office that the Minister holds not to engage with that as a genuine question.
If the Government are planning to offer support to protect jobs, businesses in Wales need to know what that package will look like and when it will come. So far, this has been a Government of smoke and mirrors, confusion and obstinacy. Whether through ignorance or incompetence, they will not give a straight answer to the simplest of questions.
Furthermore, in a written question, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), asked what estimate the Secretary of State has made of the economic value to Wales of the UK’s membership of the single market. However, again, rather than answering the question, which might help to highlight what the impact of a hard Brexit could be on Wales, he said:
“I recognise many businesses in Wales trade with the single market”.
Given the significant impact that the EU exit could have on Wales and, more importantly, the impact that the wrong deal could have on our country, that excuse for an answer is completely unacceptable. Is it asking so much for the Minister to share with us the assessment that he has made of the biggest challenge facing our country? Will he today put on the record the Government’s assessment of the economic value to Wales of the UK’s membership of the single market?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central also asked at the last Welsh questions whether Ministers would commit to supporting jobs at the Ford plant in Bridgend post 2020 by offering Ford the same post-Brexit guarantee as the Government recently gave its competitor, Nissan. It is vital for the future of that site and the jobs that are linked to it through the supply chain, as we have heard this afternoon, that post Brexit, it is able to operate on the same terms as competitors such as Nissan. In refusing to give guarantees to Ford, the Secretary of State is offering businesses in Wales a worse deal than those in Scotland or Northern Ireland. We know that because his Cabinet colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, committed at the Dispatch Box to offering the same protections for businesses in their respective countries as those offered to businesses in England. Is Wales getting a worse deal than Northern Ireland and Scotland? If so, can the Minister tell us why? If not, why will he not guarantee Ford the same deal as its competitors? It looks like a game of playing favourites. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn highlighted the support needed for industries such as the automotive industry.
Labour Members believe that a modern industrial strategy for Wales should be more than just picking winners from Whitehall. Companies in Wales should get at least the same deal from the Westminster Government as companies in England. If the Minister will not give that commitment to Ford, perhaps he will consider another major company in Wales, one of the biggest employers and investors—Airbus. It, too, needs to know what the future looks like. We need a straight answer from the Minister. Will Airbus get the same deal from the Government as Nissan? Airbus spends £4 billion with suppliers, supporting approximately 110,000 jobs. Millions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line, so we need answers from the Minister. Will he offer a deal and protect the future of 100,000 jobs in Wales?
I have said this previously, but for the avoidance of doubt I will repeat it. Labour respects the result of the referendum, but we must get the best deal for people and businesses in Wales from the coming negotiations, and we will get that only if the Government provide some clarity on what their strategy is and what businesses can expect. It is essential that the UK Government work closely with the Welsh Government and the other devolved Administrations in preparing for the EU exit. They owe that to the businesses and people of Wales. I look forward to some clarity from the Minister on what he and the Government are doing to provide any reassurance to the people and businesses of Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I, too, extend congratulations to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing the debate, and on winning a by-election in Ogmore —a task that was beyond my capacity back in 2002.
This has been a good, detailed debate, but it has been lacking in constructiveness. Its title on the Order Paper is “Effect of exiting the EU on businesses in Wales”, but throughout the debate, an acknowledgement of Wales’s strong position has been sorely lacking. There has been no mention of the fact that, in the past year, Wales has performed extremely well on jobs. On every single measurement of employment, the Welsh performance has been positive, and it has been in the top three of the 12 UK regions and nations. As we debate our exit from the European Union, we are in a strong position, both as regards employment levels and how businesses are performing in Wales. It is a shame that those comments have not been made in this debate.
There has been acknowledgment of the strength of various parts of Welsh industry and of success stories in parts of Wales, but we need to look at the overall performance of the Welsh economy since 2010. Wales’s employment growth has been well above that of the UK as a whole. We have seen unemployment in Wales fall, and I am happy to say that that is because of a constructive relationship between the UK and Welsh Governments. That is something we should hear a bit more about, rather than the scaremongering we hear when people continually ask whether there will be job losses as a result of leaving the European Union.
Wayne David
Does the Minister agree that the most disappointing aspect of this debate has been the absence of a single speech from a Conservative party Member of Parliament for Wales?
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Will the Minister take an intervention from me?
Guto Bebb
I will of course give way to my Parliamentary Private Secretary—no, had I better not. Certainly, the debate has been interesting, but hon. Members are well aware that Members have responsibilities in different parts of the House and are in different debates that are going on, and it is unworthy of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to try to score that political point.
Going back to the success of the Welsh economy, we need to identify the fact that small businesses are a great part of that success story. Small businesses are growing. Indeed, we have seen the figures that show that small businesses’ growth in turnover in Wales has been among the best in the UK during the past year. The best performing part of the entire UK has been small businesses in Cardiff, which have enjoyed 12% growth in turnover, outpacing the situation in London. I pay tribute to all small businesses in Cardiff that have been part of that success story.
Stephen Doughty
I pay tribute to them, too, as I did in my speech. On the Minister’s earlier comments, to be fair, I did make it very clear that there had been work on the city deal and on the enterprise zone, and that kind of constructive work needs to continue through this period of uncertainty. Does he agree that the very real concerns being raised by a number of businesses in my constituency, despite that growth, are valid and need to be answered?
Guto Bebb
As a Minister in the Wales Office, I fully accept that small businesses have concerns—indeed, all businesses in all sectors of the economy in Wales have concerns—but they also see opportunities, and we have heard precious little on those opportunities in this debate. The Secretary of State for Wales and I have been out dealing with stakeholders regularly—those in the farming industry, the third sector, the university sector and the further education sector; businesses small and large; the Confederation of British Industry; the Institute of Directors; and the Federation of Small Businesses. We have been talking to all those stakeholders. We have been doing that because this change—the decision made by the people of Wales and the United Kingdom to leave the European Union—is huge, so it is imperative that we talk to individuals, businesses and stakeholders who will be affected.
A Government who were arrogant enough to think that they had all the answers are not a Government I would want to be a part of. The fantastic thing about my involvement in the Wales Office since March has been the opportunity to meet so many stakeholders in Wales and listen to what they want from the decision that was made to leave the European Union.
Ian C. Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for showing his usual courtesy in giving way a great deal. Will he give me an example of one opportunity arising from Brexit that the university sector has told him about?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I have to respond in the same way as some of the hon. Members who mentioned businesses in their constituency but indicated an unwillingness to name them. I was recently in discussion with a university in Wales that saw huge potential to increase its attractiveness to students from outside the European Union; however, it is not a case of either/or. It wants to attract an increasing number of students from outside the European Union, but it also wants to ensure that it keeps the markets that it has in the European Union. These discussions are wide-ranging, and it is fair to say that the responses that we are getting, even from the further and higher education sector, are not as negative as the hon. Gentleman implies.
Kirsten Oswald
It is interesting that the Minister has come to the subject of universities, which I mentioned. Does he care to elaborate on his suggestion that universities do not particularly see this as a negative, because that is contrary to the discussions that I have had with them? Also, will he talk about overseas students and the impact of his Government’s plans for overseas students on universities in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere?
Guto Bebb
The whole point of having consultations with universities is to understand their perspective. Their perspective is that, yes, they have concerns about elements of the decision to leave the European Union, but they are not entirely negative. I am not speaking about a single university; between myself and the Secretary of State, we have spoken to most of the higher education system in Wales since the decision to leave the European Union. We have listened to those concerns, but we are also hearing that they see opportunities. More than any sector, the higher education sector is aware that its success and ability to play a full part in the development of cutting-edge technologies, for example, is dependent not only on our membership of the European Union, but on our partnerships with all parts of the world. I argue that the doom and gloom of some people here, when it comes to us no longer being part and parcel of European projects supporting higher education, can be challenged through agreements with states such as Israel. Again, we need to be slightly more constructive when talking about the response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Guto Bebb
I have to make progress, because I have only five minutes left. We also need to talk about exports. We are doing extremely well: Wales has doubled its exporting since 1999, which has been a great success, and many people have highlighted the fact that we export some 60% of our products outside the European Union. We appreciate the importance of the single market to businesses in Wales, but it would be wrong to think that the single market is the only option for Welsh businesses.
I welcome the comments about the importance of the city region deals; they are important. I would not want to underestimate the importance of the guarantee given by the Chancellor that European funding will go on until the point at which we leave the European Union. I am grateful that that has been recognised by some Members.
On Wales’s involvement in the negotiations, we should take some comfort from the fact that there is an ongoing engagement process from the Wales Office and across Government. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Secretary of State responsible for foreign investment have been to Wales, so the engagement is there. In addition, cross-Government committees have been set up to ensure that the voices of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are heard. I have sat on those committees, and I say to the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), that the contributions made in those committees by members of the Scottish national Government in Edinburgh have been incredibly constructive and positive. Of course there are differences, but the efforts to create a structure that allows all the Parliaments and nations of the UK to contribute to this discussion are very important.
It is only fair to respond to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Ogmore. It is fair to say that we have offered guarantees on European funding up until the point of exit from the European Union. The questions on funding after our exit from the European Union also relate to what we would qualify for after our exit from the European Union. That still needs to be looked at and considered carefully. I am unable to give any assurances on that issue at this point in time; indeed, it would be irresponsible of me to do so.
I was asked about skills, and there is an issue about that. We have had huge investments from European Union funds to support skills, but it is imperative to highlight that some degree of certainty is offered. In addition, I point the hon. Gentleman to the fantastic agreement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government in ensuring that there is a support structure in place for the apprenticeship levy; I hope that he welcomes that.
Another issue that has been highlighted is the triggering of article 50. Most, but not all, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have supported the fact that there will be more information provided before we trigger article 50. Obviously, the Labour party has stated that it will support the triggering of article 50, and I welcome that development.
We are moving forward, and a detailed plan will be forthcoming, but it is important to stress again that the reason why we are not providing an ongoing running commentary is that we have an obligation to listen to the views of people in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members, especially those sitting on the Opposition Benches, ask for clarity; today I have heard a degree of difference in the calls for membership of the single market. For example, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) highlighted that there are genuine concerns in his constituency and other parts of north-east Wales about migration. He will be aware that any efforts to deal with that issue would have an impact on our membership of the single market. That is a more subtle response than we have heard from some hon. Members.
Finally, on this desperate need for information, I fully accept that businesses in Wales need to know more. However, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts); I have had more correspondence relating to business rates than on this specific issue. We have the responsibility to do the right thing. I am confident that we will, and in February more information will be made available.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Exiting the EU: Scotland
(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
It may be helpful if I make it clear at the outset that, as a result of the Division, the proceedings have been pushed back 15 minutes: this debate will conclude at 4.45 pm.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Scotland and the process of the UK leaving the EU.
It is a pleasure to speak here under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
Exactly 174 days ago, 62% of people in Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. We are now about three fifths of the way between the referendum and invoking article 50, so 107 days from now, at most, the Prime Minister intends to trigger—probably irrevocably, although that is subject to some discussion—the process of taking us out of the European Union, despite the fact that 62% of us want to stay in.
Two years after that, we face a spectacle in which the citizens who hold sovereignty over one of the most ancient—indeed, most European—of all nations will face the threat of having our European Union citizenship stripped from us: neither because we wanted to rescind it nor because we broke the rules and it was rescinded by the European Union, but because it was taken from us by the actions of a Government who have never held a majority in Scotland during my lifetime.
There will be some on the Government Benches—there are not many here today, admittedly—and possibly even on the Opposition Benches, whose public response would just be, “Tough! That’s the way things go. If you don’t like it, you just have to lump it,” dismissing Scotland’s concerns out of hand. My advice to them is to think very carefully indeed about how such an attitude is likely to be received north of the border.
With this debate, I am not trying to reopen the argument that was won and lost in ballot boxes the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I find it strange that, although I have now accepted that certainly England and Wales are leaving the European Union, some hon. Members who represent constituencies in those countries may be trying to prevent that from happening. I respect the will of the people of England and Wales. They have given a mandate and I understand that the Government seek to implement that mandate. However, I ask the Government to accept—even simply to recognise—the fact that no such mandate exists from the people of Scotland or, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I just wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would remind me of the result of the Scottish independence referendum.
Peter Grant
I am delighted to remind the hon. Gentleman that during the Scottish independence referendum, Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative party, promised the people of Scotland that a vote for independence would take us out of the European Union and a vote against independence would guarantee a place in the European Union. I am also delighted to remind him that, in percentage terms, the majority of the people of Scotland who want to stay in the European Union was almost two and a half times bigger than the majority who wanted to stay in the United Kingdom in the Scottish independence referendum.
Just now we are talking about the threat to our membership of the European Union. Other aspects of our constitutional status may well be up for discussion at some other time but, in the limited time available to me now, I will concentrate on the immediate issue, which is respecting the democratic will of the people of Scotland to remain in the European Union.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand to ask whether I could make an intervention. The Scottish fishing sector, like the Northern Ireland fishing sector, voted almost unanimously to leave the EU. It is fed up with the EU telling it what to do, with reduced fishing fleets, imposed quotas and reduced days at sea, and with red tape and bureaucracy strangling our once proud fishing fleets. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for fishing across Scotland and the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, our leaving the EU cannot happen quickly enough?
Peter Grant
I certainly understand the frustrations of fishermen and women. I have had some dealings with their representatives in Scotland, but I have not had the same discussions with those from other parts of the United Kingdom, so I cannot speak for them at all. We have to remember that the reason why the fishing industry in Scotland lost out through the common fisheries policy is that, as became public many years later, there was a deliberate decision by the UK Government of the day to negotiate away the livelihoods of our fishing communities in return for something that presumably benefited some other community elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman points to part of the contradiction in the way the European Union operates. Luxembourg, which does not have a fishing fleet for the very good reason that it does not have a coastline, whose population is about the same size as that of Scotland’s capital city, got more votes on adopting the common fisheries policy than Scotland ever had. Regardless of where the European referendum takes us all in the next few years, there are unanswered and unsettled questions about the constitutional status not only of Scotland but of other UK nations in relation to the rest of Europe.
The Government asked the people of the United Kingdom for a mandate on the European Union. They got different mandates from different countries within the UK. That creates a problem—there is no denying that. My concern is how we resolve that problem on behalf of the nation that I call home and that I am here partly to represent.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The concerns in Scotland are the same as those in Northern Ireland, Wales and indeed many local authority areas throughout the UK. However, there are mechanisms: those set up through the Joint Ministerial Council, through the input that Departments in Scotland and Northern Ireland will have in the preparation for negotiations and through the ongoing opportunities for debate in this House and the Exiting the European Union Committee, of which both he and I are members. Do those not give the regions of the United Kingdom the opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard? The important thing is that the Government must respond positively to the concerns raised.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind Members who have made interventions that the terms of the motion are specifically about Scotland? We should not be trying to develop this into a wide-ranging debate about other parts of the United Kingdom, tempting though I am sure that is.
Peter Grant
Thank you, Mr Howarth. May I just say in response to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that the jury is still out on whether the Joint Ministerial Council is worth the paper that its name is written on? We will find out once we see the position adopted by the UK Government and the evidence—or lack of evidence—of any change at all in their stance to take account of the very different demands and needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom.
It would be easy for the Government to carry on and negotiate a settlement that satisfied just their own Back Benchers and their own priorities, but to do so would be to ignore the distinct constitutional identity of Scotland and their party’s own promises to treat Scotland as an equal partner in the Union. It would renege on the Government’s call for Scotland to lead the Union and would ditch forever the respect agenda that they were so keen to promote barely 24 months ago.
To ignore and dismiss out of hand the wishes and the expressly stated decision of the people who hold sovereignty over Scotland and who are sovereign even over this Parliament when it legislates on Scottish matters would certainly please the hard-liners on the Government Benches for a few hours—until they saw how it was received in Scotland. How it would be received in Scotland is not hard to imagine, so I do not need to dwell on that here.
The first argument for giving Scotland its proper place throughout the Brexit process is that it is Scotland’s proper place. If we are truly an equal partner in this Union and an integral part of the United Kingdom, we are entitled to nothing less than equal partnership. We should be an integral part of the most important negotiations that the United Kingdom has undertaken since 1945.
The second argument stems from the Prime Minister’s repeated claims that she will negotiate a deal in the best interests of all the United Kingdom. How can she possibly know what is in the best interests of all the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom? Who is now telling her what is in the best interests of the people of Scotland? Who in the inner circle of the Cabinet will speak up for Scotland’s interests or those of other devolved nations when—not if, but when—they do not coincide with the interests of other parts of the United Kingdom? The Secretaries of State for the devolved nations are not even part of that core decision-making team. How can it be credible for Cabinet Ministers to say that they will negotiate for what they know is in best interests of Scotland, when they are fighting among themselves about what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom?
By contrast, the Scottish Government are pretty clear about what they believe is in the best interests of Scottish people. Their immediate response after the referendum was almost unanimous and supported across party lines in the Scottish Parliament. They have committed to publishing proposals before Christmas that could deliver as much as possible of what is in Scotland’s interests, while still allowing the UK Government to respect and honour the decision made on 23 June. It is sad but not surprising that before anyone even knows what that document will contain, it is already being torn to pieces by the social media trolls—none of whom, I am sure, has any connection with the Conservative party.
I hope that the UK Government will at least take time to examine the Scottish Government’s proposals. I am not insisting that they adopt them in their entirety, but I would like an assurance that at least they will be examined and given the respect that they are due. That really is the least the UK Government can do, given that for months their party leader in Scotland has been screaming demands to know the Scottish Government’s plan for Brexit. Interestingly, I do not remember ever hearing her asking to know her own Government’s plans for the United Kingdom, but maybe that is more her problem than mine.
I have not seen the Scottish Government’s document, but—again, in contrast to the UK Government—they have been clear and consistent in setting out what they believe Scotland needs to see at the end of the process. We need to retain full access to the single market. If that does not happen, the impact on our economy may be very serious indeed, because Scotland is a trading nation. Our exports support tens of thousands of jobs—not only in Scotland, but elsewhere. They also provide a very tidy income indeed, thank you very much, for Her Majesty’s Treasury. I hope that that will not be forgotten.
We also want to retain free movement of people. The UK Government have decided that free movement of people is fundamentally a bad thing that we should not accept at all, but in order not to have to accept it they are prepared to lose the benefits of membership of the single market. In Scotland, we do not see a conflict, because we want to keep free movement of people. We see free movement of people as a positive. We have benefited as a nation, socially, culturally and economically, from migrants coming in from other parts of the European Union. Our citizens have benefited from opportunities to become immigrants in other people’s countries. We want that to continue, and that is not just the view of the Scottish Government: all the indications are that it is the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland.
I suggest to the Minister that the apparent conflict between Scotland’s attitude to the free movement of people and the attitude of some other parts of the UK, and between Scotland’s determination to remain a full part of the single market and the lukewarm reception that the single market gets in other parts of the UK, can be resolved if the Government are prepared to countenance a negotiating position that seeks an agreement to allow immigration rules to apply different criteria in different parts of the United Kingdom, to meet different pressures on services and needs in the employment market. If they are prepared to accept that—it is now quite common practice in a lot of EU countries—the rules on the single market, trade areas, customs union and so on do not have to apply absolutely uniformly across the whole United Kingdom.
It has become increasingly obvious over the past few years that there are very few areas of public policy in which one size can hope to fit all throughout the United Kingdom. I suggest to the Government today that, for some of the major pillars of policy on which we will need to negotiate agreements in the lead-up to Brexit, one size cannot possibly fit both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
If the Government are not prepared to seek a solution that allows different sizes and different applications of policy in different parts of the United Kingdom, what are they suggesting instead to deliver the stated wish of the sovereigns of Scotland—the 5.5 million people who rightly and inalienably hold the right to determine what the future holds for our nation and which direction it goes in? If they are not prepared to respect that sovereign will, how will they ensure that, when the Brexit process is completed, the people of Scotland believe that they are still valued, equal partners with a mission to lead the Union?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to return to Westminster Hall, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) suggested should be renamed “Brexit Minister Hall” because of the frequency of my visits. I commend him and his colleagues for their active role in supporting the Department’s debates.
Upon her appointment in July, the Prime Minister committed to full engagement with the devolved Administrations to get the best possible deal for all parts of the United Kingdom as we leave the EU. Following the referendum result, her very first visit was to Edinburgh to meet the First Minister of Scotland, followed quickly by trips to Cardiff and Belfast. Make no mistake: the United Kingdom voted on 23 June to leave the European Union, and we will leave the EU as one United Kingdom. I welcome the acceptance by the hon. Member for Glenrothes that a mandate has been given—at least in some parts of the country—for that process, but I noticed that in his avoidance of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) he neglected to note that the 2 million people in Scotland who voted to stay in the UK in 2014 outnumber significantly those who voted to remain in the EU.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is great to see the Minister in his customary place; perhaps at the end of the Brexit negotiations his name will be chiselled on to the chair. Does he accept that, as the First Minister said, the United Kingdom that people in Scotland voted to remain part of in 2014 has “fundamentally changed”? That was the expression she used. There has been a fundamental change in circumstances, so we have the right to insist that the mandate in Scotland to remain in the EU is respected in the UK Government’s negotiating position.
Mr Walker
I am always pleased to engage with the hon. Gentleman, but it is clear that the referendum was UK-wide. The decision was taken on a UK-wide basis and the negotiations will be conducted on a UK-wide basis. Nevertheless, we do, of course, have to accept the concerns and views of the Scottish people, to which I will come in greater detail.
As we prepare to leave, we stand by our commitment to engagement with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government. The devolved Administrations are having and will have the opportunity to have their say as we form our negotiating strategy. The Prime Minister chaired a plenary meeting of the joint ministerial council in October, at which she discussed the process of preparing to leave the EU with the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.
We have created a new Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations), which brings together all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to develop a UK-wide approach to our negotiations. The committee is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and has agreed to meet monthly as we seek to agree a UK-wide approach to negotiations, share evidence and take forward joint analysis. In our commitment to the JMC(EN) process, we have also agreed to work collaboratively, first, to discuss each Government’s requirements for the future relationship with the EU; secondly, to seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for, the article 50 negotiations; and thirdly, to provide oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four Governments are secured from the negotiations.
Jim Shannon
I should put on record the fact that although the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain, in my constituency the majority voted to leave. Nevertheless, throughout Northern Ireland many people who were in the remain camp now accept that the decision has been taken UK-wide, and as such they want to move forward. The issue today is not the decision that was taken on 23 June, but how we move forward for everyone, even those who were in a different camp, most of whom accept that we should move forward.
Mr Walker
I totally accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. Indeed, I was in a different camp during the referendum. I said at the end of last week’s debate that we all must now move forward to ensure that we make the process work not for 48% or 52%, but for 100%. The hon. Gentleman’s point was well made.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the meetings of the committee that has been set up under the Secretary of State’s chairmanship. The Secretary of State agreed last week that a plan would be put to the House before article 50 is triggered—will that group meet before then, during the process, or what?
Mr Walker
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his intervention. I assure him that the group will meet before that plan comes forward. As I said, monthly meetings of the group are already arranged, and there will be further meetings before the publication of the plan. It is important that the views of the JMC should be taken into account.
Sammy Wilson
Although there is going to be consultation through the JMC, will the Minister make it clear, now, that that does not mean that different regions of the United Kingdom can have a different relationship with the EU, either by volunteering for it or by having it forced on them?
Mr Walker
I absolutely accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s point; we need to conduct the negotiation for the whole United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is important that we demonstrate that our door is open to the Scottish Government and all the other devolved Administrations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already had a number of discussions with the Scottish Government’s Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe, Mr Russell. Indeed, I welcomed Mr Russell’s comments to the Scottish Affairs Committee on Wednesday 7 December, when he said: “The hotline is working”. I personally attended the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council in Cardiff, with the First Minister of Scotland and Minister Russell, and was pleased to have constructive discussions with that important forum. Such engagement at ministerial level is being complemented by a good deal of engagement at official level. We are holding detailed bilateral meetings with each of the devolved Administrations on key sectors that they identified as priorities, and UK Government Departments are continuing to engage with each of them on their key policy areas.
In preparing for this debate, I decided to revisit the views of the hon. Member for Glenrothes on EU policy. I was pleased to read that last November he said that
“the experts on matters such as fishing and agriculture are very often the people who work in those industries. If we do not listen to them from the very beginning of the process, we will get it wrong.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 79WH.]
I could not agree more. It is crucial that, as we prepare to leave the EU, we listen to voices from across the UK, and, indeed, from across Scotland. I have detailed some of our engagement with the Scottish Government, but that is only part of the picture.
Peter Grant
The Minister’s exact recollection of my words is better than my own, but I certainly will not disagree that that is what I have said. Given that we agree that the people who understand the fishing industry best are the people who work in the industry, with hindsight does he accept that a previous generation of Ministers treated the fishing industry very badly when they sold it out to Europe in return for benefits elsewhere?
Mr Walker
In this debate, we should focus on the future rather than debate the past, but I think we all accept that we are where we are today because mistakes have been made on Europe in the past.
On our engagement with Scotland and more widely, DExEU Ministers have met more than 130 companies from every sector of the British economy since July. That is one part of a whole of Government effort to speak to every sector and region of the British economy. Behind the scenes, officials across Whitehall are working together to ensure that businesses’ views reach the policy makers who are working to get the right deal for the UK. We have hosted round-tables with universities, energy companies, retailers, professional and business services providers, the financial sector, automotive companies, construction firms, oil and gas companies, farmers, fishermen, the food industry and businesses in regions throughout the UK. That is just the start of a national conversation that will continue as we leave the European Union.
We will continue to speak to businesses of all sizes and shapes, in every corner of the UK, including Scotland. We want to give small businesses the opportunity to have their say. The Prime Minister has held her first business summit with the Federation of Small Businesses, and we have been visiting chambers of commerce throughout the country and speaking to groups representing family businesses. Our Ministers have visited Wales, Northern Ireland and every region in England, and, of course, the Secretary of State went to Glasgow, where he visited the Tontine business centre and held a stakeholder round-table at the University of Strathclyde.
I was originally planning to visit Scotland this week, but the pressure of parliamentary business means that I now intend to travel to Scotland early next year, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union. Incidentally, on my way here from the voting Lobby, I ran into my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, who assured me that he is very much looking forward to a meeting with the Scotch Whisky Association to discuss some of the opportunities of this process. We will listen to stakeholders, including farmers, the fishing industry, and food and drink manufacturers, as well as the universities—including Scottish universities—representatives of some of which I met earlier today.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes touched on the future trading relationship with the EU. One of our first priorities is to allow UK companies to trade as freely as possible with the single market in goods and services—that is the very point he was making. We will work hard to get the best deal for the whole UK, and we are considering all factors carefully in implementing the referendum decision. We are, though, looking for a unique outcome, not an off-the-shelf solution. We are aiming for the right deal for the United Kingdom. As we conduct our negotiations, it is a priority to secure British companies’ trade with the single market in goods and services.
Indeed, we want the best possible arrangement for trade in goods and services with the EU. We are not seeking to replicate any other model; we want a bespoke approach that works for the whole of the UK, including Scotland. This objective is a priority that I believe businesses across the United Kingdom and across Scotland will share. A single UK position in relation to our future relationship with the EU is vital to protecting the UK’s interests as a whole.
For Scotland, exports to the rest of the UK are worth four times as much as those to the EU. This Government are determined to promote Scotland’s future, including through the extra £800 million of capital funding through Barnett consequentials, as a result of the autumn statement. If that funding is used properly by the Scottish Government, it will make a real difference to productivity, jobs and growth, so that the Scottish economy can perform even more strongly in the future.
I note that the hon. Member for Glenrothes and some of his hon. Friends have touched on a role for the Scottish Government in the negotiations themselves. We have made no decisions yet about the format of the direct negotiations with the European Union. Of course, it will be for the Prime Minister to ensure that we negotiate the best possible future for the United Kingdom, and our Department is there to support her, representing the interests of all the UK’s constituent parts. However, it is very clear that in each of the three devolution settlements, the conduct of international relations is a matter that is expressly reserved. In the Scotland settlement,
“international relations....including relations with the European Union”
is a reserved matter. That does not diminish our commitment to engaging the Scottish Government. I say again that the JMC(EN) has an important and enduring role in overseeing these negotiations as they take place.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about Scotland’s position on free movement and I know that in the past he has raised the issue of EU citizens living in the UK. Let me repeat what I have said many times on that: I want and the Government want to ensure the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. We need to do that through negotiation and through a reciprocal agreement that also secures the rights of UK citizens, including many Scottish citizens, living in the European Union. It is absolutely vital that we do that at the earliest possible opportunity, and I hope that we will be able to bring news on that front early in the negotiation process after article 50.
Although it is a priority to do that, obviously it must be done through negotiations. Doing otherwise would risk adversely affecting our negotiating position and hence the position of British citizens, including many from Scotland, who have chosen to build a life with their families in other countries.
This is a very important issue and an important debate, and I welcome the discussion that we have had today. The hon. Gentleman is clear that Scotland’s voice will be heard in this process and so am I. We have established good processes for engaging with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations through the JMC forums. As we have seen today, Scottish MPs are playing a full and active part in the parliamentary scrutiny that is ongoing in this United Kingdom House of Commons. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pointed out, MPs from across the United Kingdom have that opportunity and are taking it.
We are ensuring that channels exist for official-level discussions on the detail and seeking to build a common evidence base. We stand ready to talk to the Scottish Government at any time. I know that we have heard much talk of plans lately in this House, as per the debate last week, and we will set out more of the detail for the UK plan ahead of the notification of article 50 before the end of March 2017.
We will leave the EU as one United Kingdom, but in doing so it is vital that Scotland’s interests are understood and that the voices of the people, businesses and other groups in Scotland are heard.
Question put and agreed to.
Greater Manchester Spatial Framework
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
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Greater Manchester spatial framework.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and it is also a pleasure to be joined by colleagues from both sides of the House for this debate. The cross-party interest in this matter demonstrates the real concerns about the spatial framework that exist among residents right across Greater Manchester. I wish to highlight some of those concerns and draw them to the Minister’s attention today.
The Greater Manchester spatial framework is the product of the Greater Manchester combined authority. It represents the authority’s plans for the management of land for housing, commercial and industrial use for the next 20 years. The framework is currently in draft form and subject to a consultation; I gently remind colleagues and all interested parties that the consultation is open until 23 December.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I wonder whether he has had the same concerns expressed to him that I have had expressed to me about the fact that the consultation period has been so short and that the consultation has had so little publicity.
William Wragg
I have picked up on that concern and doubtless other right hon. and hon. Members will have heard similar concerns, so I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I want to make it clear from the outset that I am not against building and development per se, nor am I against the concept of the framework itself; on the contrary.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
The hon. Member is supportive of house-building. How many houses does he think should be built in his constituency?
William Wragg
If the hon. Gentleman waits with bated breath, he will have the answer, later in my speech.
As I say, I am not against development per se and I think that a cross-regional approach for strategic housing allocation across Greater Manchester is to be welcomed. Of course we need to provide new developments to fill the housing shortage, but it must be done in a way that is sensitive to both the local environment and the wishes of local communities. Also, it should be provided only where there is a genuine need and where the infrastructure exists to support such developments.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
A vital part of the infrastructure that must be taken into account is public transport, such as railways. Should not any new housing developments be located on existing public transport routes?
William Wragg
My hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. If he, too, waits until later in my speech, I will refer to what he has just said in detail.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Before he moves on, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Gwynne
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but is he concerned, as I am, that there does not appear to be any joined-up thinking between different parts of the combined authority? We are currently in a consultation on the spatial framework, which is identifying whole tracts of land for future development, yet we have just finished a consultation on the Greater Manchester transport strategy 2040, under the guise of Transport for Greater Manchester, which bears no relationship to the spatial framework?
William Wragg
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the need for greater “joined-up thinking”, a phrase that is perhaps over-used but rarely put into practice.
It is in this spirit—of building where there is genuine need—that I wish to raise some specific concerns about the methodology behind the framework. The draft framework proposes that 227,200 net additional dwellings will be needed by 2035 to home a projected population increase of almost 300,000 people. It also apportions this house-building target across the 10 Greater Manchester councils, and in the case of Stockport, the allotted target is 19,300 new homes.
I have concerns about how these figures have been arrived at. To estimate the population growth, the spatial framework considered information from the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Communities and Local Government, an economic forecasting model, the Experian credit-referencing agency and independent business consultants. In 2014, the combined authority produced a 165-page document, outlining and consulting on its methodology for calculating future housing needs. Dozens of tables and graphs later, we arrive at the magic prediction of 294,800 extra people by 2035, which translates into that figure of 227,200 new dwellings that I gave before.
Forecasting is a very difficult and complex task, and it is always subject to a degree of uncertainty. However, taking just the most recent three forecasts from the ONS—from 2008, 2010 and 2012—there is a variance of almost 200,000 people between the highest and lowest estimates for the population of Greater Manchester by 2032. This means that the framework’s magic number is two thirds within the margin of error of the three most recent ONS forecasts, and that is without even cross-examining the four other sources.
It is also curious to observe that 10 large housing developers all claimed that the authority’s objectively assessed need figure was too low, whereas the Campaign to Protect Rural England claimed it was “excessively high”. Faced with such wild variance in the estimates of population growth, it is difficult to have faith in the combined authority’s arithmetic. One wonders whether the projected need goes beyond the true need.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. My constituents are also concerned that an absolute number is meaningless if it does not take account of the mix of housing need, which must be matched to the population. They have particularly expressed concern about the need for family homes and affordable homes. Does he agree?
William Wragg
I agree with the hon. Lady, who raises an important point.
My second major area of concern about the draft framework is the proposal to release green-belt land for housing development. It proposes to build on 4,900 hectares of Greater Manchester’s green belt, representing a net loss of just over 8%. Locally, Stockport is set to lose some 9% of its green belt. Some 8,000 homes will be built on green belt in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), whereas in my constituency permission will be given to build a further 4,000 homes on fields around the village of High Lane, essentially doubling the village’s size. Those housing developments have been proposed with little regard for the burden of increased traffic on the road network or the increased pressure on public services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I am—he sounds like he is—about the release of green-belt land? We understand from national guidance that green-belt land should be released in only the most exceptional or very special circumstances. In fact, I had a quick look at the planning practice guidance, which says:
“Unmet housing need…is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying…development on…the Green Belt.”
Does he agree?
William Wragg
The hon. Lady’s point is entirely correct. My concern is that the combined authority’s housing target will become an exceptional circumstance, as it appears to think.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. On the allocation of green-belt land for housing, does he agree that the figure is dependent on an assessment of the pipeline of brownfield sites, which has always been underestimated?
William Wragg
The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. Again, he alludes to something that I will address in my remarks. He is spot on.
If the homes in Stockport are realised, they will account for only two thirds of Stockport’s overall target, so I fear this is likely to be the thin end of the wedge. Last night, my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) presented petitions on behalf of thousands of our constituents who oppose the massive-scale development on the green belt and who want to prioritise building on brownfield land.
The voices not only from my constituency but from neighbouring constituencies, as evidenced by the attendance in Westminster Hall this afternoon, show a clear concern that the green belt should be protected. Green belt is easily the best loved and understood British planning policy, and it is hugely valued. It has been a long-standing commitment of Governments of all colours that redevelopment and reuse of land in urban areas—so-called brownfield sites—should take priority over greenfield sites, and rightly so for a number of reasons. First, it protects the countryside and provides the benefits of green spaces and access to nature and recreation.
On regeneration, we need to get people living in town centres again. Our cities are thriving, but medium and large towns are being neglected. Such depopulation leads to further decline and creates a vicious cycle, as I fear has been witnessed in Stockport. However, Manchester, to its credit, has made great strides. The green belt encourages the regeneration of our towns and the best use of our land.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The green belt also prevents urban sprawl. My constituents in the towns of Heywood and Middleton are extremely concerned about the erosion of the green belt, to the extent that they are worried that, eventually, the two towns will cease to exist, becoming something like Heyton or Midwood.
William Wragg
The hon. Lady possesses great powers of foresight, because my next paragraph is on green belt being a vital barrier to urban sprawl. In the case of Heywood and Middleton, the green belt is an important barrier between the two communities.
As a vital barrier to urban sprawl, the green belt encourages us to build upwards not outwards, to live nearer our places of work and not to commute or congest. Our local roads, infrastructure and transport capacity already struggle with existing demands. The proposals for massive developments in semi-rural areas will only make matters worse.
By contrast, developing vacant brownfield sites that have previously been used for other purposes is a more sensible approach to house building. Such sites are closer to urban centres, retain the countryside, boost regeneration and ease transport pressure yet, before many brownfield sites have been properly utilised, the framework seeks to release green-belt land that, once gone, can never be gotten back. Although building on greenfield sites is sometimes necessary, the release of green-belt land now, and on the scale proposed, is a huge disincentive to the proper use and regeneration of brownfield sites.
Most of our housing is now provided by volume house builders, which are essential to housing provision, but it is worth considering how they operate. Their business model favours large new greenfield developments. If we make sites on green belt available, the volume house builders will develop those sites first and will make the case that sites in our towns are unsuitable or, indeed, unprofitable. Once they have developed on the green-belt releases, they will come back for more before they even look at urban land. Therefore, the opportunity for real regeneration in Stockport and other Greater Manchester towns will be lost for a generation.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the value of the green belt to people living in Stockport and Tameside. He will know that much of our green belt is also recreational space for those two boroughs. Is he concerned, as I am, that some of the sites that have been identified in the spatial framework are within the Tame valley? One site is at Hyde Hall farm in Denton, and there is also a large industrial proposal on the edge of Denton in his constituency. That is wrong, is it not?
William Wragg
It is wrong, and I know the hon. Gentleman had a battle on his hands with the threatened encroachment on Reddish Vale country park.
What will we do to ensure that brownfield developments are prioritised, that our towns are regenerated first and that green-belt land is released only when it is the last option? First, we need an accurate estimate of the amount of urban land available. According to the combined authority’s own figures, Greater Manchester has at least 1,000 hectares of undeveloped brownfield land that has not been earmarked for use. Taken together, the sites have enough space to build at least 55,000 homes—that is a very conservative estimate—which is almost a quarter of the entire Greater Manchester target, as set out in the framework. This is merely a pilot exercise, and I am confident that more sites can be found, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned. However, releasing green-belt land now would totally undermine the incentive for such developments.
Secondly, Greater Manchester combined authority needs to address the familiar issues that prevent development of urban land, such as split ownership, land banking, unrealistic expectations of land value, access, contamination and others.
Thirdly, to make housing in urban areas attractive to new owners and tenants, we need to make town centres places where people want to live, with pleasant, safe surroundings and the right facilities, amenities, public services, schools and healthcare. Those aims could perhaps be achieved by creating a development corporation or similar body with responsibility for regenerating Greater Manchester and with a remit to recycle land and to create fit places to live. That need not cost much, but it would create the proper planning that would stop Greater Manchester sprawling out unsustainably in all directions.
I have three questions for the Minister. Does he agree about the need to protect the green belt and to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield land as an alternative? Does he agree that green-belt sites should be used only as a very last resort when all brownfield sites have been exhausted? Does he share my ideas for prioritising brownfield development, and what other steps are the Government taking to encourage it? Does he think that Greater Manchester combined authority is justified in its housing target and its desire to release green-belt land in the immediate future?
As I said at the outset, I and the thousands who signed local petitions are not against house building, but we believe in brownfield sites. Sites that have been developed previously should be prioritised for building homes, which not only protects the countryside but focuses development where regeneration is needed and where the necessary infrastructure already exists. The strength of local opinion is clear to see, and it is clear to see in the turnout of colleagues from Greater Manchester in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I thank all those who have supported the campaign.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) for securing this important debate. It is right that the Greater Manchester spatial framework be properly scrutinised, as any development will have a lasting effect on our conurbation. Likewise, it is perfectly understandable that many of us have been raising concerns about specific developments and potential developments in our constituencies.
We also have a duty to think about the prosperity of our region and the country as a whole. We need to take into account the views of businesses as well as residents. We need to think about not only those who voted us into office last year, but the young people in our constituencies who, in 10 to 15 years’ time, will be looking for a home in which to live. I therefore want to focus on the bigger picture of what the spatial framework means for the future of Greater Manchester. For me, it is about unleashing opportunities. Our city region is world-renowned for its cultural and sporting dynamism, entrepreneurial spirit and innovation in science and technology. We are a thriving city region, and to sustain that, we need to be able to grow, so that we can attract business, tourists, workers and students, and we need to ensure that Greater Manchester can provide enough homes for future generations to move into and start their own family. The Greater Manchester spatial framework aims to achieve exactly that. It also seeks to address some of the big challenges that this country faces.
We politicians constantly bang on about the housing crisis, and we all agree that to solve that problem, more houses must be built. The spatial framework will help build the houses we desperately need. We also constantly talk about the need to rebalance the economy and address the north-south divide. The spatial framework will go some way to tackling that inequality, so I for one welcome the plan. However, I am not giving it a blank cheque. New homes must be affordable for first-time buyers and people needing to rent at all levels of the market.
Barbara Keeley
I recently had a quick look at the homes that are going up in my constituency on patches of land. The lowest price across the range of new homes was £225,000 in Little Hulton, and the highest was £550,000 in Boothstown. The difficulty is that the homes that go up are aspirational four and five-bedroom homes. They are not affordable.
Simon Danczuk
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention. I completely agree: there needs to be diversity and a mix of accommodation created. The plan has to take that into account, but the plan is designed specifically for new development and is only in draft form. As I pointed out, I do not give the plan a blank cheque; it has to match the needs of every section of our communities.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made clear, infrastructure must be provided with new development. It cannot be an afterthought; that is a particularly important point. I am talking about infrastructure in the broadest sense of the word—about schools, not just roads. I understand other Members’ concerns about the green belt and the need to prevent urban sprawl. While I do not dispute that access to green open spaces is important to people’s quality of life, surely it is equally, if not more, important to people’s wellbeing to have a roof over their head and a job—things that this plan provides.
Simon Danczuk
I will just make a little progress.
I am fortunate that Rochdale has many green and open spaces, the vast majority of which will not be affected by the proposals. In fact, the plan promises to create alternative green-belt land in Rochdale, which will go some way to compensating for what is lost. Additionally, many of the development sites in Rochdale will be brownfield sites, using up wasteland and former industrial areas, so it is not as though the proposal has set out to target green-belt land without considering other options first.
Finally, we need to consider the bigger picture. We need to welcome the opportunities provided in the spatial framework—the jobs, the homes and a real plan to tackle national challenges and boost productivity in the north-west. No scheme will be perfect. While we scrutinise and improve the draft proposals, we must also show a degree of pragmatism and, indeed, political leadership.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I should point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that because of the earlier Division, which caused the sitting to be suspended for 15 minutes, we will conclude at 5.45 pm.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to see Members from right across Greater Manchester and on the Opposition and Government Benches here to debate this important issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) for securing the debate.
I am conscious of time, so I will get straight to what the debate is about. I think we are in agreement that we need a good local plan for the area that provides the housing and infrastructure that we need, but this is not it. The plan lacks vision and has no real foresight or ambition for the future development of Cheadle. While I accept that there is a need for more housing across the country, that should never be achieved through the indiscriminate development of our green belt. Instead, as others have said, we should regenerate our brownfield sites—and there are brownfield sites to be regenerated in our areas.
I have campaigned to protect areas of Cheadle from inappropriate development, and last night I was pleased to join my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) in presenting my petition against the plans to the House. It collected more than 2,600 signatures, which was quite an achievement. I was overwhelmed by the thousands of constituents who have been in touch with me on the issue. The strength of feeling shows that local people do not want their future development to look like the draft plans. People care about their local community and want to see urban areas regenerated. They love their open and rural spaces, and recognise their value for physical and mental health and wellbeing.
In my constituency, that strength of concern is most evident in the activities of local neighbourhood groups, such as Woodford Neighbourhood Forum, which was set up in October 2013. Since then, members and residents have raised funds and spent thousands of hours working on their local plan. Getting a local plan together is no mean feat. Over the past three years, they have put together more than 340 pages of material, and I am concerned to ensure that their voices are listened to.
There is an urgent need to identify all suitable brownfield sites, including ones in and around Stockport and in urban areas across the Greater Manchester city region, where communities would benefit from the additional investment generated by regeneration projects. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has identified that brownfield sites in the UK have the potential to deliver 1 million houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove described, it has been assessed that it is necessary for Stockport to have 19,300 of those houses. It shocks me to say that it is expected, hoped or proposed that more than 8,000 will be built on the green belt in Cheadle. Should the plans go ahead, they will not only devastate the countryside, but place unprecedented pressure on our local infrastructure and undermine our communities. I am a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government.
Andrew Gwynne
Actually, the situation is worse than the hon. Lady describes, because for perfectly good reasons, all 10 local councils want to use the plan as an opportunity to increase their council tax base. Therefore, it will predominantly be executive homes that are developed. Is the real risk not that we end up crashing the housing market in Greater Manchester because we have an over-supply of the wrong kind of homes?
Mary Robinson
I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental point. Indeed, it is expressly in the plan that the area around Cheadle—particularly Woodford—will be allocated for high-end, low-volume housing, and the expectation is that funds will come to Stockport Council. That is exactly it. Of course, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) will not necessarily get the housing that he needs there if developers choose to build on our green belt.
Simon Danczuk
The truth is that if we do not have a plan, we will get the housing that the developers choose to give us.
Mary Robinson
Absolutely. I started my speech by saying that we must have a plan—we all acknowledge that—and that it has to be the right plan for our areas and for Greater Manchester. It is great that we all have that common theme in mind.
The Campaign for Better Transport has spoken about the necessity of commuter hubs and the challenges for housing allocations that are more than a 15-minute walk from rail and tram stations, yet the draft plan mentions no provision for new railway stations or transport infrastructure.
Chris Green
Do my hon. Friend’s constituents have the same fears as mine, who think that we will definitely get the houses in the housing proposals, but are less certain about getting the other infrastructure developments? Will we get health, school and transport infrastructure to go along with the houses? We will get the houses first, but the other things may or may not follow.
Mary Robinson
Absolutely. That uncertainty adds to our feeling about the plan. The framework notes that significantly improved public transport is a prerequisite for the site off the A34. However, the walking distance between Woodford and Bramhall and Poynton railway stations is certainly a lot more than 15 minutes, even for the most ardent trekker.
Kate Green
The hon. Lady makes an important point about transport links. Does she share my surprise that transport operators—both bus and train operators—told me that they have no knowledge of the details of the proposed spatial strategy and that they have no plans to adapt their forward planning to take account of what might be in the strategy?
Mary Robinson
That is an excellent point well made. That is lacking in the plan. When it comes to the northern powerhouse and what we want to do in Greater Manchester, it is essential that we get those transport links right. That needs to be considered.
Finally, I make a plea to the Minister to listen to local voices. It is important that people’s voices are heard in this consultation and through the other representations that they make. Local people have already formed themselves into groups, such as the Woodford Neighbourhood Forum, to plan and shape their neighbourhoods.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) on securing this debate on a subject that will affect all our constituents in Greater Manchester. I am sure that we all subscribe to the aspirations set out in the draft framework to enhance economic performance, improve the environment and provide additional homes and jobs for the future. However, linking the green-belt review to the plan has not facilitated plan development; it has simply led to a feeding frenzy among developers, who have identified the easy pickings: the green-belt sites.
Particularly for the outer boroughs, the plan needs to be considered in conjunction with other neighbouring authorities and their aspirations. It has not been demonstrated that the duty to co-operate has been met. Indeed, St Helens Council, which adjoins my constituency, has plans to remove the green belt for three large logistics parks, which would cause considerable problems for the road network, merge distinct townships—Ashton-in-Makerfield does not want to merge with St Helens, which is in a different borough—and cause complete urban sprawl. West Lancashire Borough Council is considering hubs, and Warrington has already got a large area covered in warehousing adjacent to the M62. Will the Minister ensure that the duty to co-operate is fully enforced and that the sustainability of these developments is considered holistically, not just through a single plan?
Barbara Keeley
Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, about the impact that these houses could have on the gridlock on our roads? The recently completed north-west quadrant study, which the Minister can perhaps study, shows that the motorway and road network near my constituency has 15 of the 100 worst-performing motorway sections in the country for journeys completed on time. Our journey times are four and a half times longer than the mile a minute they are supposed to be, we have one of the poorest safety records in the country on our local roads and motorways, and almost all the motorways near my constituency are in the top 20% worst performing, in terms of casualties. The real killer, if I can put it that way, is air pollution and air quality problems, which are dreadful in Salford—much worse than the national average.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) continues, I have been very tolerant of lengthy interventions. Some Members have had the equivalent of a speech in interventions during this debate. Interventions need to be a bit more focused.
Yvonne Fovargue
I agree about the gridlock. Some of the developments that I am talking about involve heavy goods vehicles, so there will be thousands more movements of HGVs on our already gridlocked roads. That adds to the air quality problem.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Does she accept that there are those of us whose constituencies already have to accommodate considerable additional development adjacent to them? There are many new developments going on at Airport City, which is very close to my boundary. That is a continuing process.
Yvonne Fovargue
I accept that. We need to look not just within but outside Greater Manchester. Many hon. Members have mentioned the removal of the green belt. In my constituency, green belt status has been removed around junctions 25 and 26 of the M6. As we have heard, removing green belt status requires exceptional circumstances. In 2013, the independent inspector deemed that the local authority’s request to remove half the area it is now proposing to remove around junction 25 was not exceptional, so it was refused, yet a mere three years later, the M6 South of Wigan Action Group, which did sterling work with me in opposing the plan, is in exactly the same position as it was. We are again opposing the plan together.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
A week ago, my hon. Friend and I held a meeting in Kitt Green in my constituency, which borders hers. The sight of hundreds of people queuing on a dark, cold night to get into a church hall to make their views heard was deeply moving. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of feeling expressed in that hall simply cannot be ignored by local authorities and the Minister?
Yvonne Fovargue
I agree. I am moving quickly on to junction 26. I ask the Minister: how can we be in the same positon three years on? What weight will be given to the inspector’s decisions throughout this process?
Let me move on to the infrastructure. Junction 25 is a one-way junction. In the plan for transport, there is an aspiration to have a two-way junction, but it is said that it could take 40 years. Until then, there will be thousands more HGV movements on already gridlocked roads in an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, already fails air quality standards. That does not appear to meet any definition of sustainable development. It does not increase the attractiveness of the area, and it certainly does not improve the air quality. Equally, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the land at junction 26—the Bell—has infrastructure issues. It is accepted that development will be difficult unless there are major upgrades to the road system, including a new slip road. I think the phrase “cart before the horse” was used at the public meeting that we called, which attracted nearly 200 residents.
Let me move on to how those residents can make their voices heard by the leaders of their local authorities. Usually, it is via their councillors and in discussion at council meetings. However, there is some doubt about whether these plans need to be approved by local councils, whether they should be taken at cabinet level at each local authority, or whether it is solely the prerogative of the leader of each local authority to approve the plans at a meeting of the combined authorities. Can the Minister clarify that? How does a local councillor, elected by their constituents, stand up and represent their views if they are denied a forum in which to speak? Is there not a democratic deficit in that?
No one is against jobs and growth, but the plans have to demonstrate that the growth is sustainable. As for the warehousing development in my area, this is an area with a net loss of graduates and people who need high-quality jobs. We need the right jobs in the right place. We have to balance quality of life and the attractiveness of the environment.
I will bowlderise an Ogden Nash poem—I am going back to my youth—to express what I feel about this: I think that I will never see a warehouse attractive as a tree. The green belt gives us green fields, trees, relief from urban sprawl and better air quality. It is the green lung of our urban areas. It increases the attractiveness of an area, which encourages people to come to it. An ambitious plan for Greater Manchester, which will be seen as a trailblazer on this issue, should not take the easy option and reduce green-belt land. It should look for innovative and exciting ways of promoting the use of brownfield sites to improve the environment for those coming into the borough and for those who already live there.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have you taking charge of this debate, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) on securing the debate and for the very sensible and valid points he made in his opening speech. There can be no doubt that the spatial framework produced by the Greater Manchester combined authority has caused enormous consternation across my Bury North constituency. It is probably one of the biggest issues that I have come across in the last 10 or 12 years.
It clearly makes sense for any local authority or group of local authorities to have a plan, to review that plan and to determine how many houses might be needed for the next few years. I think we could all agree on that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, I have my doubts about how robust the figures used in the framework are, with immigration over the past few years—I am not making a political point; this is just a fact—running at more than 300,000 a year, which even the latest figures show.
Simon Danczuk
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he belongs to a party that has been in government for a considerable time and that said it would dramatically reduce the number of immigrants coming into the country. There has been a complete failure by his Government to do that.
Mr Nuttall
I do not want to be diverted on to a debate about immigration when we are discussing housing, but the two things are connected. More can be done and I have argued that point many times in the Chamber. One thing has fundamentally changed since those figures were drawn up and that is the referendum we had in June. That will enable this country to have more control over its borders as far as immigration from the European Union is concerned. That is a fact. We can debate lots of other things, but that will happen, and I wonder to what extent that has been reflected in the numbers.
The biggest concern of most of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have contacted me about the plans is the erosion of the green belt. My view is that the green belt is there for a purpose. It was put there to protect the land from development.
Before I came to this place, I was involved in the legal profession. We acted for one or two house builders, so I know how they operate. I can tell the House this: given the choice between developing a nice, flat, green field and having to sort out a brownfield site, they are going to choose the greenfield site every single time. The plan is like manna from heaven for developers. They were asked to put in bids and to give expressions of interest. Obviously, they came round Greater Manchester and thought, “This is fantastic! We’ll have that site, we’ll have that one, we’ll have that one and I wouldn’t mind building a few houses there!” In my own patch, for example, Bury’s green belt is threatened around Elton reservoir, with nearly 3,500 new homes planned, and between Walshaw and Tottington, where another 1,250 homes are planned. Some 100 homes are planned in Holcombe Brook and they are nibbling at the green belt around Gin Hall for an industrial estate.
I appreciate that I do not have time to go into detail about all those sites, but I want to place on record a point about infrastructure, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members today. We do not have to speculate on what will happen; we just need to look at the history. My constituency has had house building galore over the past few years. We can see what happens. House building goes ahead without any of the necessary infrastructure in place, without the necessary road improvements and without schools. On the site at Walshaw, the spatial framework says:
“Elton High School is within easy reach of the site. The school is currently subject to a Government-funded rebuilding programme that will provide good quality opportunities for secondary education in the vicinity of the site”.
It is not “will”—it has already happened. It is open and the school is there. The point is that the school is full. There is no point saying that it is going to provide extra places for all the thousands of new homes that are going to be built. That is just one example of how the spatial framework does not take account of reality.
I agree that brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield sites, but I can be as sure as anything that if this plan sees the light of day, the developers will all want to put pressure straightaway on building on the greenfield sites and the brownfield sites will still be brownfield sites in 20 years’ time. They still will not have been developed.
Finally, perhaps—I do not know what time you want to start the wind-ups, Mr Howarth?
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
At 5.30 pm, but the hon. Gentleman should not feel that he is required to take up all the intervening time.
Mr Nuttall
I am conscious of that. In my constituency, which has been very badly affected by flooding, the drainage and sewers are of significant importance and that may be the case in other constituencies as well. Everyone can agree that some of that is directly related to the house building that has gone on. I have spoken to representatives from United Utilities, who have said, “Look, all these houses were built here and we are just suddenly expected to have to try and provide extra drainage for them.” We know from history—we do not have to speculate—what will go on.
Wildlife habitats will be lost and I have had a lot of representations about that. The point about air quality was mentioned by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) as well as by other hon. Members. We already have gridlock virtually every night in Bury town centre. If there are thousands more cars on the streets arising from these housing developments, the air quality will only deteriorate further.
I hope that the brief discussion we have had here this afternoon will give pause for reflection. We accept that there has got to be new housing, but the powers that be in Greater Manchester should look again at the numbers and what they are doing to devastate the green belt and say, “We are not going to do any of that until we have built on these brownfield sites.” When we have done that, let us bring the plan back and have a proper consultation over a few months and let the public look at it. I would be grateful if the Minister in his summing up gave an undertaking that he will do what he can to ensure that the voices of our constituents are heard right across the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Howarth I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) on securing the debate. Members in all parts of the Chamber have spoken passionately for their areas, and we have clearly been discussing a huge local issue.
The Opposition do not have a particular problem with the concept of a spatial framework. Setting out a plan to deliver new homes and jobs up to 2035 is important, in particular to identify new infrastructure that will underpin such development—providing that happens, of course. The framework is also useful to sit alongside local plans, but it is not clear to me how those are being collected. On the consultation, there seem to be some issues to do with the timeframe and local views being taken on board.
The idea of the spatial framework therefore is good, but I am not absolutely convinced that in its current mode it is fit for purpose. Four areas seem to have been identified this afternoon: the inadequate evidence base for the green-belt proposals, and too much reliance on the green belt in the framework plan; the lack of protection for green space in the plan; the democratic deficit, given that we are not sure who will make the decisions about the plan; and the lack of ambition and imagination in relation to the area’s needs. I will deal briefly with those four points.
The national planning policy framework makes it clear:
“Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.”
Interestingly, the consultation on the Greater Manchester spatial framework stated:
“It is concluded that we have to consider Green Belt release to meet this need and that exceptional circumstances exist to amend the existing Green Belt boundaries, as set out in the background evidence papers”,
but the study to which that refers actually makes no comment at all on whether green-belt land should be released. There therefore seems to be a complete lack of an evidence base to enable councils to build on the green belt. Furthermore, they have not demonstrated clearly that brownfield development will not be enough, and that needs to be done in some detail, because the Government now require a brownfield register to be put together. We simply have not seen that, and it has certainly not been subject to enough scrutiny.
On green space, it would be helpful for all Members present to talk to their communities about designating under the NPPF any sites of real value to the local community. A green space designation gives a degree of protection. That needs to happen.
The councils together also need to address the issue of the democratic deficit. It is wrong for people to think that planning is done to them and that their voices are not heard. We should have a spatial framework that starts with a neighbourhood plan, listens to what local communities want and relates that to the local plan and then to a spatial plan. I hope that once my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is elected Mayor, he will look at how to put together a better spatial framework that will enable local communities to plan for the future, because that is what they want. They want enough housing and jobs, and a good built and natural environment for people to live in.
William Wragg
For the record, may I point out that there is an excellent Conservative candidate for the mayoral election next year, Sean Anstee?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Will the Conservative candidate have good ideas about planning? That remains to be seen.
I suggest to the Minister—
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am afraid I cannot give way, because I am in my last minute. I am terribly sorry.
It is important for the Minister to talk to the combined authority about how it can put together a spatial framework that better reflects what local people want and so that a system is in place to enable all aspects of the planning system to connect. We can then get the homes, jobs and infrastructure that we need, so that the area can develop.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I begin with an apology. This is my second appearance in Westminster Hall this week, and on neither occasion have I come to respond on my own area of policy. I can only assume that that is because I am doing such a good job that no one has felt the need to hold me accountable for it yet. However, I apologise today on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is in the main Chamber for the important debate on homelessness.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister should be aware that lack of knowledge never seems to impede anyone in this House.
Andrew Percy
As we are about to prove, Mr Howarth.
I was also tempted simply to hand the debate over to the various candidates standing for the mayoralty, so that they could offer up their vision of the plan. Shortly, thanks to the devolution deal negotiated with the Manchester authorities, the spatial framework will land on the combined authority and the new Mayor’s desk, whoever he or she is.
Mr Graham Brady
I will not press the Minister too much on detail, but will he be clear that the Greater Manchester spatial framework is a matter for local determination and that the Government in no way seek to force on Greater Manchester certain figures for housing development or the removal of green belt?
Andrew Percy
Absolutely. The housing figures are generated by the local authorities. I cannot comment on their validity or the merits of the Greater Manchester numbers because of the obvious proprietary reasons, which I will say more about in a moment. The figures are locally determined and are not provided by central Government.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) on securing the debate and on representing his constituents today with skill and passion. I have listened carefully to the concerns about potential green-belt loss, brownfield development and the capacity of local roads and infrastructure generally to cope. I will respond to as many of the points made as possible in the time available.
I cannot comment on the Greater Manchester spatial framework in detail because of the proprietary reasons to which I just referred. It will be subject to examination by independent inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State. My quasi-judicial role in the planning system means that I may have to intervene at later points on matters relating to the plan. I am therefore unable to comment in any greater detail, other than to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove painted a familiar picture of the difficult choices that have to be made by local areas to secure economic growth and to tackle the historical under-delivery of homes, including affordable homes.
I will briefly clarify what it takes for a local authority to plan for growth. The context is important. The process begins with the local authority understanding the disparate needs and aspirations of local people and gathering a detailed evidence base—again, to respond to my hon. Friend’s point, this is bottom up, from local authority level—to determine the needs of its area. That has to be balanced, of course, with the views of residents, who, as many hon. Members rightly said, should be at the centre of the planning system, and with Government policy, MPs’ views, environmental constraints and external pressures from developers.
The plan then has to identify objectively what development is needed for employment, economic growth, housing and infrastructure, to come up with strategic options and, of course, to engage local people again in deciding where that development should go. I reiterate that this is a very democratic process, and rightly so. Local people need to be at the heart of it.
The dates for the current consultation have already been referred to, but there has been a series of public consultations on the spatial framework draft plan. The consultation document was published on 31 October, and the consultation will end on 23 December. A final draft of the plan is expected in 2017.
Lisa Nandy
The picture that the Minister paints is very different from my experience and that of many of my colleagues and my constituents. Most of my constituents had never heard anything about the plan before I wrote to tell them about it. Even the name—Greater Manchester spatial framework—is deliberately off-putting to people. It is incredibly difficult for the public to get into these documents, understand what is proposed and make their voices heard. It would be very welcome if the Minister acknowledged those difficulties and put his support behind the public having a real say in the matter.
Andrew Percy
I served for 10 years as a local councillor, and I cannot pretend that agreeing our joint local plans or strategic planning policies necessarily excited the electorate or was the talk of the Dog and Duck on a weekend, but the public are certainly interested in the delivery of more homes, industrial development and all the rest of it. This process is managed locally, not by central Government, so the hon. Lady will need to speak to her local authorities about how they have advertised and consulted the public; it is not a matter for me to determine.
Andrew Percy
I have literally five minutes, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman as long as he is very quick.
Andy Burnham
One of the problems that our constituents will have with this plan is about how the road network will cope, because it feels like it is already at saturation point. The north-west of England desperately needs significant investment in rail infrastructure. Does the Minister for the northern powerhouse agree that high-quality west-east rail across the north of England is a higher investment priority than Crossrail 2 in London?
Andrew Percy
I am not going to get into the divisive argument about whether what happens in London should happen elsewhere. This country should be capable of delivering proper rail networks for both London and the north of England.
All parties have a responsibility for the decades of under-investment in the north of England, particularly in east-west connectivity. We are putting £2.8 billion into the current franchises for improvements and £13 billion into transport improvements across the north over this Parliament. We have, of course, created Transport for the North, which will come forward next year with strategic rail investment proposals for the entire north. That is something we have never seen before, and it will have the basis and nature of what happens in London with Transport for London. The northern powerhouse rail and High Speed 3 proposals, which are being developed at the moment, are of course part of that. That work will be completed next year, and I hope that Transport for the North will come forward with strong proposals for rail investment, because infrastructure is really important.
I have only three or four minutes left, and I want to respond clearly to a couple of points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove made about brownfield sites. We have been clear that we are seeking to prioritise brownfield sites for development. We have reaffirmed our commitment to 90% of suitable brownfield sites having planning permission for new homes by 2020. We have taken action such as widening permitted development rights to help give new life to thousands of under-used buildings. We are ensuring that the new homes bonus continues to reward councils when long-empty homes are brought back into use. We are accelerating the disposal of surplus public sector brownfield land for development, and we have put an additional £1.2 billion into enabling starter homes to be created on brownfield sites.
Importantly, we will create a brownfield register, which will provide up-to-date, publicly available information about brownfield land that is suitable for development, so the public will be able to see what land is designated as brownfield in an area and whether it has been developed. We have also introduced permission in principle, a new route to planning permission that will give up-front certainty that the fundamental principles are acceptable before developers need to get into costly technical matters.
My hon. Friend asked whether we should have a more rigid brownfield-first policy. We must be careful, because not all brownfield sites can be developed, due to environmental and pollution concerns and all the rest of it, but we are clear that brownfield sites should be prioritised. That is why the percentage of new residential addresses—that includes conversions, some of them under the rules changes I mentioned before—created on brownfield sites was 61% last year, up from 58% in 2014-15. We are quite rightly trying to prioritise brownfield sites.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) raised infrastructure, and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned road safety. Yesterday, we devolved some functions to Greater Manchester through statutory instrument, and one of those was road safety promotion. The combined authority and the Mayor will be able to exercise that new power.
We must match infrastructure to development—there is no doubt about that. That is why we announced in the autumn statement a £2.3 billion housing and infrastructure fund to do that. Over the last decade or so, we have all been victims of developments in our local areas that have not necessarily come with the most appropriate infrastructure, so we are absolutely clear about the issue.
In my final five or 10 seconds, I reiterate that the plan can go ahead only if it enjoys the unanimous support of every council that sits on the combined authority. It really is in the hands of local people.
Written Statements
Energy Council
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
The Energy Council, chaired by the Slovak presidency, took place in Brussels on 5 December. I represented the UK at the Council on 5 December.
The meeting began with a political debate on the options for regional co-operation, solidarity and transparency for the gas security of supply regulation. The aim of the presidency was to find compromises and get political guidance from member states.
On regional co-operation, there was a broad split with no clear majority for either option put forward by the presidency. A majority of member states supported a risk-based approach, while others wanted the clarity and certainty provided by the fixed region approach. On solidarity, most member states supported some flexibility but others wanted some detail laid down in the regulation in order for arrangements to be consistent across the Union. On transparency of contracts, most member states agreed on the need for strengthened exchange of information. On the basis of the discussion, the presidency developed a compromise set of conclusions which gave more flexibility to member states on solidarity, more transparency on contracts and agreement to pursue a risk-based approach to regional co-operation but with greater clarity on the composition of regions. These conclusions were consistent with the UK position and were agreed by all member states. Adoption of these conclusions sets the path towards a general approach, which will form the basis for negotiating a final agreement with the European Parliament.
Vice-President Šefcovic (energy union) introduced the Commission’s clean energy package, which was published on 30 November. He highlighted the energy union governance framework, and a need for reliable, transparent and long-term monitoring that streamlined reporting as well as the need to support the 2014 and 2015 European Council conclusions. Commissioner Cañete (climate action and energy) then provided a high-level overview of each of the main elements of the package, which together were intended to ensure that the EU stayed ahead in the clean energy transition and in mobilising the Paris agreement. An informal exchange of views on the package took place over lunch. We are considering how best to work with the Commission and other member states during the forthcoming negotiations to improve the proposals in the package.
The Council then held an exchange of views on the external dimensions of EU energy policy. There was general support for the progress that the EU had made in relation to its relationship with third countries on energy policy. Some member states stressed the importance of the work with Ukraine, and that it should remain a priority. Others stated that diversification of supply sources and routes for energy into Europe was critical.
The Council received an update from the presidency on progress in negotiation of the energy efficiency labelling directive and the decision on inter-governmental agreements.
The Commission presented recent developments in the field of external energy relations, which included the Paris agreement entering into force and the recent signature of the memorandum of understanding with Ukraine.
Finally, the Maltese delegation presented its priorities for its presidency. These fell into three areas: completing files already under discussion; creating momentum on the clean energy package, with informal and formal Council meetings focused on this agenda; and EU-Mediterranean co-operation.
[HCWS354]
Renewable Heat Incentive
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)
Today my noble Friend the Minister of State for Energy and Intellectual Property has made the following statement:
In March 2016, the Government set out their proposals to reform the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme in the consultation “The Renewable Heat Incentive: A reformed and refocused scheme”. The consultation ran from 3 March to 27 April 2016 and received 370 responses from individuals, businesses, trade bodies and other organisations. I am pleased to announce that the Government response to the consultation has been published today.
Heat accounts for almost half of UK energy use and a third of UK carbon emissions. Decarbonising how we use heat in our homes, businesses and buildings is therefore an essential part of how we transition to a low-carbon economy. It can also in time help to make heating homes and other buildings more efficient and affordable.
In November 2015, the Government renewed their commitment to the transition to a low-carbon economy by confirming a continued budget for the RHI out to 2020-21. By confirming the available budget and setting out a number of reforms for how the scheme will operate, the Government intend to provide the level of certainty needed for consumers and industry to invest in renewable heating and for the market to transition towards being sustainable without Government support in future.
It is vital that the scheme delivers value for money for taxpayers and supports the development of technologies that will be important for the long term. That is why we will be reforming the scheme to ensure it:
Focuses on long-term decarbonisation: promoting the deployment of the right technologies for the right uses, while ensuring the RHI contributes to both our decarbonisation targets and to the UK's renewable energy target.
Offers better value for money and protects consumers: improving how costs are controlled, giving consumers more confidence in the performance of particular technologies and addressing potential loopholes in the scheme.
Supports supply chain growth and challenges the market to deliver: driving cost reductions and innovation to help build growing markets that provide quality to consumers and are sustainable without Government support in future.
[HCWS353]
Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
I am pleased to announce that Dr Owen Bowden-Jones has been appointed to the ACMD both as a member and as its new chair. This appointment is for a three year term, beginning on 1 January 2017. Dr Bowden-Jones is an experienced clinician who provides assessment and treatment for people experiencing harms from emerging problem drugs.
The ACMD was established under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and provides advice to Government on issues related to the harms of drugs. It also has a statutory role under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Dr Bowden-Jones will replace Professor Les Iversen, whose term ends at the end of this year.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Iversen for his dedication to chairing the ACMD over the past seven years.
[HCWS352]
North Korea
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
I would like to update the House on recent developments regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the international response and what actions the Government are taking.
The Government remain deeply concerned by North Korea’s continued development of its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. This year we have seen two nuclear tests from North Korea, and an unprecedented number of ballistic missile launches. These actions have been accompanied by threatening rhetoric, and the continued prioritisation of the weapons programme over the well-being and needs of the North Korean people.
On 14 September, I informed the House that the UN Security Council had agreed that North Korea’s fifth nuclear test on 9 September was a clear violation of existing Security Council resolutions, and that there would be a robust response.
On 30 November, the UN Security Council adopted Security Council resolution 2321, a package of new, stronger measures to deter and challenge North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. This resolution builds on the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, 2087, 2094 and 2270.
Significant measures in the new resolution are designed to constrain and disrupt the DPRK’s nuclear intentions. The new cap on coal exports, with a UN oversight mechanism, will directly affect the DPRK’s ability to raise foreign currency for their nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. This is estimated to reduce DPRK foreign trade income by $700 million, and when combined with a metals export ban, will cut DPRK trade income by a quarter.
The resolution tightens existing measures, and enhances controls on technology imports, on shipping, and on banking, as well as demonstrating a new resolve to disrupt any abuse of diplomatic privileges. This will send a strong signal as well as have important practical effects. This text, in addition to the UN Third Committee resolution on DPRK human rights adopted on 15 November, makes clear the explicit link between the DPRK’s proliferation choices and their shameful treatment of their own people. The United Kingdom has worked closely with P5 partners throughout the development of UNSCR 2321, and will be at the forefront of the discussion amongst EU member states as we transpose the UNSCR swiftly into EU law.
Both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have spoken with counterparts regarding the increasingly belligerent and dangerous behaviour of the DPRK. The threat posed by the DPRK’s programmes to both regional and international security will continue to be at the forefront of our work.
As the United Kingdom has done on many occasions, we continue to urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to credible and authentic multilateral talks on its nuclear programme. We ask it to abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to permit full access by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
[HCWS355]
House of Lords
Immigration: International Students
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the visa requirements for international students and to remove those students from the immigration figures.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will shortly be seeking views on a range of proposals to reform the visa system for international students. Like other migrant groups in the UK, international students use public services, contribute to population levels and affect local communities. The independent Office for National Statistics therefore includes international students in its net migration calculations, following international best practice in this regard.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
My Lords, international students are one of the most gleaming gems in the United Kingdom’s soft power crown. My noble friend knows that I believe they should be removed from the immigration figures, because there would only be an upside to such a move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Can she give the House information on the tier 4 pilot that is being undertaken? What are the results so far and what can be done to extend it to give even greater benefit across the sector?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly know my noble friend’s feelings on this matter—in fact, I think I know the House’s feeling, having answered this question several times—and I was very pleased to have a discussion with him the other day. The four institutions chosen were Oxford, Cambridge, Bath and Imperial College London, which were selected due to their consistently low level of visa refusals. But the pilot is intentionally narrow in scope in order that its outcomes against the stated objectives can be monitored, and to minimise the risk of unintended consequences. If the pilot is successful we will consider rolling it out more widely.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, has not the Foreign Secretary described the Government’s policy in this area as totally crazy and pointed to the fact that the number of Indian students in our universities has roughly halved? He has called for post-study work visas to be restored, and has asked for reassurances to be given to the Indian Government and for international students to be removed from the total of recorded immigration, because it is completely misleading. Would the Minister like to commend the wise words of a sometimes misrepresented colleague?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not know who is misrepresenting who but I do not feel that I can speak for the Foreign Secretary. In fact, sometimes I do not know if the Foreign Secretary speaks for others. It is indeed true that Indian student numbers have gone down, but Chinese student numbers have gone up. Indeed, figures for the Russell Group have gone up.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, is not the figure of tens of thousands as a cap on immigration entirely arbitrary? If we accept the importance of international students, they should be taken out of that target. That does not mean taking them out of the OECD numbers, but it does mean that we could look again at the international numbers. I declare my interests as listed in the register.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there is no cap on the number of students who come here. As long as students are compliant with immigration rules, they should make only a very limited contribution to the migration numbers. The Government’s ultimate goal is to get migration numbers down to the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands, but that will take time.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the student situation has moved on? The problem has always been the 70,000 for whom there is no evidence of departure. That is roughly half the size of the British Army. Therefore, the issue has to be tackled. However, exit checks are coming into force and fairly soon we will have a much better handle on how many are overstaying. That, I suggest, will make it much easier to deal with the policy changes that a number of noble Lords have suggested.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right to bring up exit checks. The Home Office continues to analyse and assess the element of the exit check data which has been in place since April last year in relation to specific cohorts, in order to understand the extent to which the estimates provided are statistically robust. That level of detail is not yet available but the noble Lord is right to raise this issue.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We do not believe that international students should be included in the Government’s target to reduce migration to tens of thousands. Given that many people may think that over, say, a five-year period the number of international students coming to study in the UK would roughly match the number of such students departing the country in accordance with the terms of their visa, thus having little impact on the net migration figure over that period, can the Government tell us—I fear the answer will be no—the number of international students who came to study in the UK last year? Based on previous experience, how many of those students are likely to overstay their visa, or any authorised extension to stay, and remain in this country after the date by which they should have left? One would assume that the Government know the answer to that question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think that that was several questions. However, the National Audit Office reported that in 2009-10, up to 50,000 international students may have come to work, not study, and, before our changes, international student visa extensions were running at more than 100,000 a year, with some serial students renewing their leave repeatedly for many years.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think that areas that have been left behind are not relevant here? I remind her of somewhere she and I know well: Sunderland. Its university has recently had to make significant cutbacks, which means less money in the local economy and many local people losing their jobs. One of the reasons for that is its inability to get visas, particularly for India but also for other countries from where it has historically had significant numbers of students, particularly in pharmacy and engineering.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I repeat: there is no cap on the number of international students who come here. I take the noble Baroness’s point, and I appreciate the problems some universities face in keeping student numbers up. However, others, such as the Russell Group universities, have of course seen their applications increase.
Asylum: Sexual Orientation
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people claiming asylum in the last year did so on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; and of those, how many have been granted asylum.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Office does not publish statistics on the basis of asylum claims or the decisions arising from them. This is true for claims relating to gender and sexual identity. The Home Office is considering how data from its casework database may be assured and used to provide such information to a sufficiently accurate standard.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but those who sit on the Home Office strategic engagement group, set up after the Vine report in June 2014, will be surprised by it. At the last meeting, in September of this year, a senior civil servant said that the only reason that the statistics have not yet been published is because they are waiting for authority from the Minister. Which is wrong: the Answer from the Dispatch Box or the civil servant, who says that they will be published with the authority of the Minister?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am not that Minister. However, I can say that the Home Office collects information that records whether a claim is based on sexual orientation, and it is likely to correlate with the claimant’s sexual orientation, although an individual may have an asylum claim that is quite distinct from their sexual orientation. The data are management information only—I can assure the noble Lord of that—and they do not form part of our published statistics because they have not been quality assured to a sufficient standard.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, claiming asylum on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity is deeply intrusive and personal. Often claimants have to prove their sexual orientation by disclosing elements of their private lives. Therefore, given the noble Baroness’s commitment to issues of equality, will she work with organisations such as the UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group, Stonewall and others to ensure that the approach taken towards them is fair, just and balanced?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Home Office works, and continues to work, with groups like Stonewall, and we know that some of the training received by people who process claims has improved and that questions are much more sensitively put than perhaps some of the anecdotal evidence from the past suggests. The 2014 report of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration into the handling of sexual orientation claims praised our guidance.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What is the Government’s reaction to Stonewall’s recent recommendations that alternatives to detaining LGBT asylum seekers should be developed, drawing on international best practice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can tell my noble friend that certainly the Shaw review recommended that transgender and intersex people should be in the vulnerable persons category and as a general principle should not be detained.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it seems that the Government are constantly making decisions based on total lack of data. Six years ago the Science and Technology Select Committee had this question about immigration with regard to students. We now have it with regard to this issue as well. When will the Government, and in particular the Home Office, make strides to ensure that the data they are presenting are accurate and relevant to the decisions being made?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The point I was making in my previous answer, which perhaps was not sufficiently articulated, was that we do not feel that the management data are as yet sufficiently robust, but I can keep the House updated on when such information might be available.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the department has been sitting on this information for two years. In that time, how many LGBT people have claimed asylum on the basis of their sexual orientation and how many of them have been denied?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as I said, those data are not published, so I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer at this time.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Minister confirmed in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Scriven that the Government do not record people who apply to the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme on grounds of sexuality. She will be aware that it was a recommendation of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that such information should be recorded. Can she therefore tell me how the Government can monitor whether these claims are being handled properly?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I said that this information is not published but that the Government collect it. There is guidance and there have been improvements in training, so we take this matter very seriously, as I hope I have explained. It is bad enough having to come here from a country where you have been persecuted because of your sexuality without then having to go through another very uncomfortable process, so we continue to monitor the guidance and the training around this very sensitive area.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister referred in her last answer to information that was there but not published. Why is it not published?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think that I have explained twice that it is management information only and that it is not yet sufficiently quality assured to be published. We need published information to be robust.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain how this House can hold the Government to account if they refuse to publish the figures?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can only repeat the answer that I have now given three times.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness say how long it will take to quality assure this information?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I cannot but I can assure noble Lords that, as soon as I get any information on this, your Lordships will be the first to know.
NHS: Congenital Heart Disease
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many hospitals have challenged NHS England’s recommendation that they cease to provide special surgical services for congenital heart disease.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, the department has not received any formal challenges to NHS England’s proposals for changes to the way that congenital heart disease services are organised. I know that there are some concerns about NHS England’s proposals but we must remember that no final decisions have been made. A service-change process is now under way that will include public consultation. NHS England will announce further details in the new year.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
The Royal Brompton Hospital is one of the hospitals that has those concerns. NHS England said at a recent meeting in the Commons that there were no concerns over the quality of care provided by the hospital, yet the NHS England proposals for the Royal Brompton would remove a quarter of the paediatric care beds in London when there is already a growing shortage. They would also destroy the hospital’s world-leading adult congenital heart disease programme and cost a lot of money. Given all that, can the Minister say exactly what problem the Royal Brompton proposals are aiming to solve?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I do not want to go into issues relating to specific hospitals but I emphasise that no decisions have been made. Where it is decided that changes need to be made, these will be managed carefully and will be carried out in partnership with current service providers, patient groups and advocates. Decisions are likely to be made in the summer but there will be no change on the ground until at least 2018. The public consultation will give everyone a chance to put forward their views and to discuss the plans further.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness says that she will not discuss individual hospitals but, in the end, Ministers are accountable. Will she confirm that the reason given by NHS England is that the Brompton does not meet its specification, which insists on same-site locations for all children’s services? Can she confirm that one of the hospitals not threatened with closure has multi-site locations, and will she also confirm that the Brompton has one of the best outcomes in the country?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I am not going to be drawn into discussing specific hospitals and I have given my reasons for that. However, I will say that the statement made in July by the Royal College of Surgeons and the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery said:
“We fully support these standards. NHS England must ensure that the standards are applied for the benefit of patients, by ensuring that expertise is concentrated where it is most appropriate. The proposals put forward by NHS England today should improve patient outcomes and help address the variations in care currently provided.
It is fundamentally important that specialist surgical centres are large enough and treat patients regularly enough to develop full expertise to treat all conditions. It’s vital they are properly staffed to provide on-call rotas and teams have the time to create a supportive environment where new techniques are shared and future specialists can learn”.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I was a member of the hospital board of the Brompton for some 15 or 17 years —a long time. You have to look at this case specifically because the Brompton has been quite outstanding and does not work in complete isolation. I am a cardiac patient under the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, and the same consultants work at both these hospitals and work fairly closely together. However, I do not think that anywhere exceeds the Brompton in standards of care for congenital heart conditions. Indeed, there are Members of this House whose children have had very successful treatment there. We cannot ignore the very special circumstances of this world-famous hospital.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I appreciate the concerns that noble Lords have raised and the concerns of the hospital trust. However, we must remember that no final decisions have been made and a public consultation will begin shortly. That is when all points can be raised and addressed.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that NHS England should review the unfair and inconsistently applied standards that may force the closure of congenital heart disease services at the Royal Brompton Hospital, putting lives and life-saving heart disease research at risk?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I want to share with noble Lords a little of what these standards are about. I feel quite strongly about this: it is so important, and it is the right way forward to determine where these operations should be done. The standards state:
“Each congenital cardiac surgeon must perform a minimum of 125 … congenital cardiac … surgical procedures … each year, averaged over a three-year period … Each consultant congenital interventionist must be primary operator in a minimum of 50 congenital procedures per year, averaged over a three-year period. There must be a designated lead interventionist who must be primary operator in a minimum of 100 procedures per year, averaged over a three-year period”.
This will ensure optimum outcomes for all patients.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this debate has gone on for a long time and the insecurity is very bad for patients and for staff, and that it is not just about the Brompton hospital but about other hospitals throughout the country?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. This has been fiercely debated since the publication in 2001 of the damning report into the high death rates among babies undergoing heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary. The last time plans were put forward, in 2011, it led to a bitter fall-out, pitting hospitals against senior health bosses, and two years later the proposals were scrapped, with NHS bosses being told to look again. That is why we are now trying to go forward, so that we can cover both adult and children’s services.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, may I offer some advice to the noble Baroness? It is quite clear that, in the end, the Government will not agree to the closure of the Brompton, because that has been the decision on numerous occasions since 2001. Why not just pull the consultation? It is not going anywhere, my Lords.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
We do not yet know that it is not going anywhere. A public consultation is coming forward, and the Brompton is not the only hospital concerned; it concerns a lot of hospitals all around the country. It is fair that it should go to a public consultation. Everybody will then have a chance to put their views, and that is going to be the way forward.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that as well has having surgical expertise, part of the patient’s recovery depends on having access to their friends and their family? When the NHS is deciding these things, will someone please ensure that if a hospital is a long way away from where people live, the families are given funding for travel, because many people cannot afford to do so, and, if necessary, given accommodation in the hospitals where the operations take place?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The noble Countess raises a good point. NHS England recognises that it may be difficult for the families involved having to travel further, which is why a number of standards will certainly address that point.
Independent Schools: Free Places
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Independent Schools Council’s proposal to create 10,000 free places at independent schools funded jointly with the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the positive way in which the Independent Schools Council has responded to the consultation document Schools that Work for Everyone by putting forward a number of proposals for ways in which the independent schools sector can achieve the aim of improving access for families to good school places. The consultation period closed on Monday this week. We are considering all the responses received and will publish our response in due course.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies. Has my noble friend the Minister noted that the proposals contain plans that are specifically designed to assist social mobility by providing large numbers of new places across the age range based on need and need alone, at no extra cost to the Government? This is not a repetition of the assisted places scheme. Does my noble friend agree that this new constructive plan for partnership with the state could well represent the best way in which most independent schools can assist the Government’s agenda for education reform, since so many of them are small and lack the financial resources to invest in the academies programme?
Lord Nash
I thank my noble friend for pointing out those particular aspects of the ISC’s proposals. I have no doubt that its proposals are extremely well intentioned. We know that many, probably most, independent schools do valuable work with state schools and that is very welcome—87% of ISC members are engaged in some kind of partnership with the state sector. But we believe that many can do more, although we are also clear that the expectations that we place on the sector must be realistic, proportionate and practicable.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister realise how unrealistic this is for areas such as the north-east? That is one of the prime areas where there needs to be improvement in educational outcomes and in social mobility, and it will not have much effect. We have very few independent schools in the north-east for historical reasons, because there has never been enough money around to support them. On that basis, will the Minister ensure that this is not seen as a realistic way of addressing what is a very important issue in our part of the country?
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness’s comment about educational issues in the north-east. Of course, this is not a panacea. Only 7% of the population is educated at private schools, and they are predominantly in the south of England. As I said, our proposals will have to be practicable.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister will be aware that independent schools have the advantage of charitable status, and that advantage brings responsibilities. Is he confident that all independent schools are carrying out their obligations in terms of receiving charitable status? If not, what does he propose to do about it?
Lord Nash
The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that the public benefits widely from that charitable status. It is clear that many independent schools are possibly putting back into the system more than they are getting in charitable status, but it is also clear that some are not. As I said, we want to see a bigger effort on a wider front.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
Can the Minister say what progress has been made in developing boarding school places for young people in care and on the edge of care? He may wish to write to me. Does he think that this offer from the independent schools sector is a possible opportunity to develop that approach?
Lord Nash
The noble Earl makes an extremely good point—one that is very close to my heart. I have initiated a campaign to try to encourage more local authorities to send young children who are on the edge of care to state boarding schools and independent boarding schools. It is an area where there is quite a shortage of information. We have a new project that is providing a website essentially to market to local authorities the opportunities of sending some of their children on the edge of care to state boarding schools and independent schools very cheaply because they may qualify for full bursarships.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, what this offer reveals is that the cost of educating a pupil in the state sector is around £5,500, while the average level of private school fees is three times that, which is very revealing in terms of the different offers to children in the different sectors. Does the Minister know whether this offer will be conditional on a selection test being operated to see who is able to take up these places? If that happens, does he not agree that what will then occur is not so much that poorer children per se are helped but that already bright children will be helped to achieve what they would very likely have achieved in the state sector anyway? Does he agree that, if selection is to be involved in this offer, the Government should not accept it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I too would like to declare an interest as a former general secretary, like my noble friend, of the Independent Schools Council. Will the Minister commit to working with the council perhaps to amend the scheme that it has put on the table to make sure that we take into account all the other issues that have been raised today?
Lord Nash
My noble friend is right to say that we may well have to work with a number of groups to amend their proposals before we have a final set of proposals. As I say, we have a wide-ranging group of ideas and we are determined to devise something that will actually work.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
Will the Minister give an undertaking to ensure that, whatever happens, he will not take money from other schools’ budgets in order to fund a particular project that is being put forward by a group of people? As the Statement that the Minister is due to repeat later today shows, there is great concern that across the voluntary controlled and voluntary aided sector and local authority schools, money for school budgets is being cut. Projects like this ought not to be robbing children of funding for their schools just because the Government fancy a whim.
Lord Nash
This proposal is about encouraging independent schools to help the state sector, and the money will therefore be flowing towards the state sector, not away from it. As the noble Baroness knows, we have protected the core schools budget, but we will be talking about the national funding formula shortly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will recall conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and myself about encouraging independent schools to demonstrate their public benefit by sharing their facilities for sport, drama, art, music and so on with their local state schools. I understand that a survey is being undertaken to see what the best practice is in the sector. Is his department following that survey, and will he repeat in public his private promise that, when it has been completed, we will have a debate in this Chamber on its results?
Lord Nash
We are certainly following these issues, but I cannot promise a debate because it is not in my power to do so. We have encouraged the independent sector to show its good practice and we have helped it to set up an interesting website called Schools Together, which now has more than 1,200 examples of co-operation between the state and the independent sector. Clearly, a lot is happening in this area.
Aleppo
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the conditions for civilians in eastern Aleppo and what prospect there is for humanitarian relief to reach those people.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Private Notice Question. In doing so, perhaps I may remind the House that I am the chairman of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, Aleppo is a humanitarian catastrophe. We are providing food, shelter, blankets and healthcare to fleeing civilians through our UN and NGO partners, but the regime is preventing aid reaching those who are still trapped. Pro-regime militia appear to be blocking the recent evacuation deal. It is paramount that the aid agencies get access to save lives and protect civilians.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, despite all that, it is almost four weeks since food or medical aid got into eastern Aleppo. Yesterday, the United Nations said that the Assad regime and its allies had executed 82 civilians, including 13 children. The ceasefire negotiated at the UN yesterday evening broke down this morning and the buses which were to evacuate people to places of safety have been withdrawn. We have heard what the Government have done. My question is: what is the Government’s next step at the UN or with allies to do everything possible to get food and medical aid to the civilians and to evacuate the people of eastern Aleppo, particularly the children, to places of safety? As the US ambassador to the UN asked yesterday, is there no way in which this regime and its supporters can be shamed into facilitating this vitally needed humanitarian aid?
Lord Bates
I agree absolutely with the analysis which the noble Baroness, with her great experience, has brought in asking this Question today. We are of course working with partners at the UN Security Council, but she as a distinguished former Minister in the Foreign Office will know of the complexities and difficulties there, particularly with the Russian veto stopping us from taking action. We are trying to raise the issue at the European level—this was done last week. There is also the international Friends of Syria group, which continues to meet and do its work—task forces are involved in that. Our greatest influence at the present time is probably in meeting the humanitarian needs of people on the ground. That is something of note and of which we can be proud: that in the face of this “meltdown of humanity”, as the high commissioner described it, the British people are there as the second-largest donor in cash terms and stand ready to help more when that is possible. But this is a human conflict between human actors, and it is within human hands for it to be resolved and stopped. That is what we are urging.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Minister is absolutely right, but Assad said earlier today that the ceasefire request would simply “save the terrorists”—and, of course, this is one of the problems we have. Children and families are suffering. We need evidence from this Government that they will seek international co-operation, especially through the UN, for protection, evacuation, aid and, not least, evidence, because there is clear evidence of war crimes being committed. This Government must commit to those four things.
Lord Bates
That is absolutely right. We are collecting evidence with other agencies on the ground. One problem that we face in this situation is that there is a difficulty in obtaining real, credible information, because so many international actors, ourselves included, are not able to operate in and get access to east Aleppo, as we want to in order to verify what is happening there. We are collecting evidence. There is no question on the basis of the evidence at the moment that what we are witnessing here is a prima facie case of a breach of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention—and the people who are responsible will in time be brought to justice.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, as we see the terrible events in Aleppo, what are we doing to make sure that men, women and children in the 16 other besieged areas in Syria are not also subjected to surrender and slaughter? Is Aleppo going to be a precedent?
Lord Bates
That is a great concern. We have not yet seen the besieging tactics adopted by the Assad regime in eastern Aleppo being used to the same degree in other cities, but he has gone on record with a menacing pledge that, as east Aleppo appears to fall, he will move the fight on to other cities. That urges all those who have influence over the people involved in this conflict to use all their powers to bring it to an end before we see it continuing on the same scale, and actually increasing in its brutality, in years to come.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, did the Minister see the statement from a United Nations spokesman yesterday, in which he described this as the darkest day in the history of the United Nations? With more than 5,000 dead in Aleppo in the last month —and returning to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons—did he see the report about the 100 unaccompanied children who have taken refuge in one derelict building? Do we know anything more about their fate or about the eight who were shot in their home for refusing to leave? In February, this House debated a Motion from all parts of your Lordships’ House that those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity should be brought to justice. It is not just a question of collecting evidence; it is about setting up the mechanisms necessary to do that. When will the Government do what the noble Lord said a few moments ago and bring those responsible to justice?
Lord Bates
That is right. The situation on the ground is horrific and we are now getting credible reports of summary executions. We have heard the reports about the children caught in that building, but unless people are given access to that area—it is in the control of the Assad regime and the Russian President to bring that about—we cannot get access. It will not be us directly, of course; we cannot be the actors involved in that situation. However, the agencies of the UN, the NGOs and those courageous, heroic people who are putting their lives at risk to protect other humanity in that situation should be allowed in. It is within people’s hands to do it and they should do it.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, thousands of children—we are talking about that many—are suffering so much in Aleppo. The regional director of UNICEF has said:
“It is time for the world to stand up for the children of Aleppo and bring their living nightmare to an end”.
When will it be safe for those children to be taken to safety? What is being done to deal with the plight of unaccompanied children, who I do not think have been mentioned, and separated children, who must surely have the right to be united with their families?
Lord Bates
Reception centres have now been set up in western Aleppo. The Red Crescent is operating these, with some UN supervision so that we can verify who is there. Sadly, a lot of those who are fleeing are not choosing to register, so we cannot track their situation. They are too fearful of the situation on the ground. We know of situations where convoys and exits have been planned for people to move out through certain corridors. Buses have been laid on but these have been turned back by Shia militia who did not feel that they were part of the deal. It is, as I say, a catastrophic and tragic situation of human making. I often stand at this Dispatch Box and respond for DfID to crises such as disease, a hurricane blowing through the Caribbean or an earthquake in Nepal. This crisis is entirely of human making and that is what causes outrage among the whole world and all of us. It needs to stop.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, there is a strong argument that the inaction of the United Kingdom and the United States in 2013 created a vacuum, but the existence of a vacuum, exploited by Russia, can never justify the indiscriminate bombing by Russian aircraft, flown by Russian or Syrian pilots, of children, hospitals and refugees. This is wholly contrary to the Geneva Conventions. Will the Minister repeat, once again, with the same authority as previously, that everything will be done to seek out those responsible and ensure that they are brought to justice?
Lord Bates
I can certainly give that reassurance. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we should engage in some soul searching over our responsibility. A very powerful debate took place in the other place yesterday: I commend it to all Members of this House so that we can bear it in mind when we face similar situations in the future.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Wednesday 14th December 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2016
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 3, 7, and 16 November be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.
Companies, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Non-Financial Reporting) Regulations 2016
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 November be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.
Coasting Schools (England) Regulations 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Compulsory Purchase) (Corresponding Amendments) Regulations 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.
National Funding Formulae for Schools and High Needs
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a Statement on the second stage consultation of the Government’s proposals to create a national funding formula for schools, copies of which can be found on the GOV.UK website. Since 2010, this Government have protected the core schools budget in real terms, but the system by which schools and high-needs funding is distributed now needs to be reformed to tackle the historic postcode lottery in school funding. These crucial reforms sit at the heart of delivering the Government’s pledge to build a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.
Our school funding system as it exists today is unfair, opaque and outdated. The reality is that patchy and inconsistent decisions on funding have built up over many years, based on data that are sometimes a decade or more out of date. What has been created over time is a funding system that allows similar schools with similar students to receive levels of funding so different that they put some young people at an educational disadvantage. For example, a school in Coventry can receive nearly £500 more per pupil than a school in Plymouth and a Nottingham school can attract £460 more per pupil than one in Halton, despite having the same proportion of pupils eligible for the pupil premium. As these figures demonstrate, our funding system is broken and unfair. We cannot allow that to continue.
Our overall proposals for the principles and broad design of the schools and high-needs funding system, as set out in the first stage of the national funding formula consultation by my predecessor, my right honourable friend the Member for Loughborough, were widely welcomed. Today, we set out our response to that and the next, final stage of putting in place a national funding formula.
First, we are proposing a consistent base rate for every pupil at primary and secondary, which steadily increases in value as they progress through the system between primary and secondary. This is the largest factor in the formula, accounting for more than £23 billion of annual core schools funding and over 70% of the funding total.
Secondly, we are proposing to protect resources for pupils who come from disadvantaged families and are taking a broad view to target £3 billion annually in funding for those most in need of support. Our formula will prioritise not only children in receipt of free school meals but those who live in areas of disadvantage, helping to support many more families who are most likely to be just about managing to get by. This is alongside our broader commitment to maintain the pupil premium for deprived pupils in full, which will be protected at current rates throughout the remainder of this Parliament. We have also listened to the responses received to the first stage of the consultation, so our funding formula will include a factor for mobility, reflecting the number of children who join a school mid-year. Respondents to the consultation from London called particularly strongly for this. We will also protect small, rural schools, which are so important for their local communities, by the inclusion of a sparsity factor.
Thirdly, alongside a basic amount and an uplift for disadvantage, we will be directing £2.4 billion in funding towards pupils with low prior attainment at both primary and secondary school to ensure that they get the vital support they need to be able to catch up with their peers.
Our proposed reforms will mean that schools and local authorities all across England that have been underfunded for years will see their funding increase. Our proposed formula will result in more than 10,000 schools gaining funding and more than 3,000 of them receiving an increase of more than 5%. Those that are due to see gains will also see them quickly, with increases of up to 3% in per pupil funding in 2018-19 and up to a further 2.5% in 2019-20.
At the same time as restoring fairness to the funding system, we are also building significant protections into our formula: no school will face a reduction of more than 3% per pupil overall as a result of the new formula, and none will lose more than 1.5% per pupil per year.
On high needs, which provides local authorities with the funding they need to deliver the extra support required by our most vulnerable children and young people, for those with the most extreme special needs, whether they are in special schools or mainstream schools, we propose allocating over £5 billion in funding a year. That will mean that no local authority area will see its funding reduce as a result of the formula being introduced. We also propose to give local areas limited flexibility to be able to redirect funding between their schools and high-needs budgets, through agreement between the local authority and local schools, to support collaborative approaches to provision for special needs pupils.
These protections will allow all schools and local authorities to manage the transition to fairer funding while making the best use of their resources and managing cost pressures, ensuring every pound is used effectively to drive up standards and have maximum impact for the young people we are investing in. In addition, to support schools in using their funding to greatest effect, we have put in place, and are continuing to develop, a comprehensive efficiency package.
As I said in my Statement to the House on 21 July, I recognise the importance of this reform. It is long overdue, and I am keen to allow the proper amount of time for all schools to have the chance to reflect on what is a detailed formula. The consultation will therefore be open for 14 weeks until 22 March, with final decisions to be made before the summer next year. It is our intention that once we reach a final decision, the national funding formula will be properly introduced in 2018-19. This will be a transitional year during which local authorities will continue to set local schools’ funding formulae, before we move in 2019-20 to our schools funding going directly to schools, so that the great majority of each school’s individual budget is determined on the basis of a single national formula.
It is now time for us to consult on the more detailed design of the formula so that, with the help of the sector, we can really get the national funding formula right. We are keen to hear as many views as possible, and I encourage Members and their constituents to scrutinise and respond to the detailed consultation documents.
The proposals for funding reform will mean all schools and local areas receive a consistent and fair share of the schools budget so that they can have the best possible chance to give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential. Once implemented, the formula will mean that wherever a family lives in England, their children will attract a similar level of funding—one that properly reflects their needs.
This Government believe that the funding system we are proposing will ensure our schools system works fairly, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also thank him—or perhaps it should be his officials at the Department for Education—for assisting those of us who are unable to grasp the main arguments within the Statement by helpfully underlining the really important words in it, just as the red tops do for their readers. It is a quite extraordinary development in the issuing of Statements.
The outcome for schools across the country will undoubtedly be disappointing, even for the 10,000 or so—less than half of all schools—which are to gain, because no new money is promised by the Government. That is hardly a surprise, but what is a surprise is that the Government have chosen to release the Statement today, apparently oblivious to the fact that the National Audit Office was issuing its report on the financial sustainability of schools just hours earlier. This Statement has already been delayed for too long. Had it been produced in a more timely fashion, perhaps the Government could have enabled the NAO to take on board the plans outlined in it, but that has not happened.
I have no doubt that the Minister and the Secretary of State would rather that the National Audit Office had kept quiet, because Whitehall’s spending watchdog paints a markedly different picture to the upbeat scene sketched out in the Statement. The NAO says that the Government’s approach to managing the risks to schools’ financial sustainability cannot be judged to be “effective” or to be “providing value for money”. Schools have to make £3 billion in efficiency savings by 2019-20 against a background of growing pupil numbers and a real-terms reduction in funding per pupil. Indeed, Sir Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, does not pull his punches. He says:
“Schools could make the ‘desirable’ efficiencies that the Department judges feasible or could make spending choices that put educational outcomes at risk. The Department, therefore, needs effective oversight arrangements that give early warning of problems, and it needs to be ready to intervene quickly where problems do arise”.
Unfortunately, the department’s own Statement is not leading the news agenda because it has been overshadowed by the NAO report—which, unlike the Government’s, is not partisan because the NAO’s remit is to help the Government in their drive to improve public services, national and locally. However, I would forgive the Minister if, at this point, he does not quite view the latest intervention by the National Audit Office in that way.
Not only is there no new money, but less than half of schools, as I said, stand to gain from the new funding formula. There is scant information in the Statement about the losers, just a rather complacent comment that no school will lose out by more than 3% per pupil overall. In many cases, school budgets are already intolerably stretched, and there simply is no room to absorb any kind of cut, whether 3% or less. Can the Minister say precisely how many schools will lose, how much they will lose in total and over what timescale? Can he further say what estimate—if any—has been made of the resultant impact on them and their pupils? Will there be job losses? What will the effect be on class sizes? It really is unacceptable that the Statement does not even hint at such information. Perhaps it is in the more detailed papers that accompanied the Statement, which I regret I have not yet had time to scrutinise. But the Minister will have had sufficient time, so I hope he may be able to enlighten noble Lords.
The Statement repeats the palpably false claim that the core schools budget will be protected overall in real terms. The National Audit Office report debunks that myth, stating that although average funding per pupil will rise from £5,447 in the current year to £5,519 in 2019-20, once inflation is taken into account that amounts to a real-terms reduction. I suspect the Minister will be unwilling to accept that analysis. If so, I suggest that he hears it from the chalkface. He may, like other noble Lords, have been listening to Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning when Anne Lyons, head teacher at St John Fisher Catholic Primary School in London, was interviewed. Of course, it is likely that schools in London will be among the hardest hit by the new formula. She said that schools were at breaking point:
“We realise we have to do more with less money in reality … But we’re now at the stage—we’re at breaking point”.
She also said:
“Like many schools … facing these cuts, we are worried … It means that we’re struggling to maintain the services we’ve been able to offer. We’re cutting activities. We’re a school that is increasing in size … we can’t increase the staffing in line with the increase in pupil numbers … the only way some schools are going to manage this significant cut in real terms is through staff cuts—and that’s going to add to workload”.
I accept that the news is not all bad, as high-needs pupils, as the Minister said, are to receive additional funding, and no local authority will see this part of their funding reduced. It is also to be welcomed that the issue of mobility has been recognised. But the Statement is plain wrong when it claims:
“Once implemented, the formula will mean that wherever a family lives in England, their children will attract a similar level of funding—one that properly reflects their needs”.
That is not the case, and this cannot be fine-tuned in that manner. A new funding formula was certainly needed, but it should have protected any school from suffering a reduction in funding, no matter how small, because schools simply cannot afford to have already stretched budgets reduced.
The Secretary of State should have fought her corner much more robustly with the Chancellor prior to the Autumn Statement to secure additional funding to protect schools scheduled to lose as a result of this Statement. The suggestion that schools make £1.7 billion in savings by using staff more efficiently just does not connect with the real world. Is the Minister unaware of teaching shortages? He certainly should not be, because I bang on about it often enough. Perhaps he can explain how efficiencies can be wrung out of schools that are already understaffed. Can he also confirm that there is no plan to pay for this funding formula by raiding the further education budget to some extent? That is often seen as an easy choice, and within the Department for Education it could be done. I am not saying there has been such a suggestion, but I would like the Minister to confirm that there is no question of stretching an already overstretched sector yet further.
For six years the Government forged ahead with an education policy containing just one strand, academisation. It was not particularly successful but at least it was consistent. Cue a new Prime Minister and suddenly, that has been turned upside down, with grammar schools now the answer. Of course they are not—only a small clique within the Conservative Party, of which I know the Minister is not a member, believes that—but it serves to highlight the turmoil within current government education policy. This approach has resulted in no progress against international comparisons, a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, a majority of secondary schools with budget deficits and now schools across the country facing the most severe cuts to their budgets in a generation, while the only new money being offered to schools in England is to expand the few remaining grammar schools— 80% of them, unsurprisingly, in Tory-held seats—regardless of where the need for new places is. I suggest that that sums up the Government’s priorities. Despite their platitudes about education for all, their concern is really only for the few. That simply is not good enough. Our children deserve much better than this.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It says that our current system is “broken and unfair”. Yes it is; as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has rightly pointed out, we have real problems of teacher supply in schools throughout the country, and teacher shortages in major subjects such as mathematics. There is also the current funding crisis.
I slightly disagree with the Statement where it says the Government have,
“protected the core schools budget in real terms overall”.
However, those school budgets have not taken account of the increases of on-costs and national insurance. Many schools have faced real financial problems. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the pupil premium and rural schools, and the promise of further financial resources for the disadvantaged. The additional safeguards, including the redrafted formula, are very welcome, but schools are still currently facing reductions of more than 3% per pupil, and this does not resolve their concerns or ours. The proposal does not change the real financial situation that our schools are facing. We are seeing real-terms cuts to education funding and, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has said, the National Audit Office has pointed out that by 2020 schools will have seen cuts of £3 billion and pupil funding fall by 8%. Those figures are just unimaginable.
We know—this is not illusory—that some head teachers are seriously considering cutting the school week to four days because their budgets are so tight that they just cannot operate a five-day week. Yet at the same time, against that backcloth, we have the Government committing £240 million-odd to the reintroduction of a grammar school system and, of course, the cost of enforced academisation.
I personally, along with my party, welcome the idea of fair funding. In my city of Liverpool, when my party took control, I felt it unfair that the previous party had funded pupils below the national average. We immediately increased the funding to above the national average, and the benefits were there for all to see: Liverpool pupils then outperformed the other core cities. Fair funding, as per its title, can be fair, but there are winners and losers. The only way that I think you can make it work is by ensuring that no school in a fair-funding system sees its pupil figure reduced; they have to be brought up to the top figure.
We are proposing a consistent base rate for every pupil at primary and secondary school that increases in value as they progress through the system. Does that mean that we will have differential rates of funding for an infant pupil as opposed to a junior, secondary or sixth form one? I thought the days had gone when we thought that an infant was not as worthy financially as a pupil at a sixth form college, when we know that in fact the equipment required for an infant costs far more. Perhaps the Minister could explain that point.
We welcome the consultation because it is important to get this right. How does the Minister see the consultation being fed back to your Lordships’ House?
Lord Nash
My Lords, perhaps I could just point out a few inaccuracies in the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Watson: 10,740 schools will gain, 9,128 will lose—54% of schools gain; and we have provided an extra £200 million.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, referred to the National Audit Office statement. Schools are making substantial efficiency savings—certainly in the academy sector, where we have much closer and more stringent financial oversight and much more information. I agree with the comments of the National Audit Office about some local authority schools. Schools are coming over from the local authority sector, whose financial controls appear to be very poor.
I invite the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, to look at the financial toolkits that we have developed on our website, particularly the very good clip from Sir Michael Wilkins of Outward Grange Academies Trust, one of our top performing academy groups. It has developed a toolkit called curriculum-led financial planning, which is a bottom-up analysis of how to remodel schools more efficiently and is creating significant savings in schools, and it has absorbed a number of schools into its family which have made significant savings at the same time as driving up education standards substantially. Any school considering going to a four-day week should contact the EFA for advice, because I am sure that by the application of such techniques, that can be avoided.
On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about differential rates, the answer is yes.
Lord Adonis (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have wrestled with the school funding issue myself in the past, particularly in 1997, when we inherited significant overfunding of grant-maintained schools relative to other schools. The decision we took after extensive consultation with schools was that it would not be appropriate for schools to have their budgets cut. Part of the reason for that is that there is only a certain amount of energy in the system to raise standards, and it was clear from the discussions that I and my colleagues had that that would lead to a massive draining of energy from the system, because every school to lose from its budget would blame every problem it faced, every failure to raise standards, and every controversy in which it was engaged on the Government having cut its budget.
That involved a very small number of schools. The Minister and his colleagues are being extremely courageous in proposing to cut the budget of 46% of schools. All I can predict with any certainty is that there will be massive controversy in the sector; that will distract from the challenge which he and I would agree is the most important one facing the education system—the relentless one of raising standards, particularly in poorer areas, where standards are still too low and too many schools are still underperforming.
There is a very simple remedy—the one suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—which is that no school suffers a cut in its budget. It would take longer for the new funding formula to take effect, but it would ensure that no school has to sack teachers or is given the excuse of a reduction in its budget to take its eye off the most essential challenge that we face, which is raising standards, tackling disadvantage and ensuring that every pupil in every part of the country has an opportunity to succeed at school.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that raising school standards is the most important thing. I perhaps should declare an interest, because he got me into this in the first place.
I do not want to sound complacent, but all schools have known for some time that they effectively face a cost pressure of 8% through pensions and national insurance. The school system is adjusting to that remarkably well, actually. I can only repeat what I said earlier: the toolkits that we published and the methodology being developed to re-engineer some processes without resulting in redundancies, in many cases, are remarkably effective. A closer analysis of some of the techniques, where adopted—I agree that they need to be more widely adopted across the sector—will show that they are effective.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I bring the attention of the House to my entry in the register of interests as leader of Wiltshire Council. I welcome the review, which has been long awaited by all our schools. I particularly welcome the fact that it has been noted that there are issues with rural schools, and that the Government suggest that we protect those schools and particularly look at the sparsity factor and the cost of delivering education in a rural area.
However, when we look at this review of the funding formula, have we taken into account our military children and families? There is an issue about the funding of military children and its costs, and they are a group that often struggles to come up to the standards of other children because of the type of life they live and the moves they make. I urge the Minister to continue to look at having something in the formula that helps communities with large numbers of military children.
Lord Nash
I certainly share my noble friend’s concern about small rural primary schools, which will on average benefit under these proposals by over 5%. We will publish, school by school, the impact of the national funding formula later today. I will certainly look more closely at the impact on military children and families.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, of course it is right to put at the centre of policy the raising of standards in schools. Members in this Chamber now are to be congratulated on setting this ball rolling a number of years ago, as is the Minister on continuing that in the school system today. That is fundamental—it is principle number one.
All is not well in schools, and we know it. In fact, the Statement accepts that. Plenty other folks have made the same point: the unions will certainly make it ad nauseam, and the OECD has pointed it out rather forcefully recently. I speak as one who is greatly concerned about shortage of cash in other areas of the Budget—not least social care—which will have a direct impact on the success of schools; we are not on a single track. Granted that the principle of higher standards is accepted, what are the other fundamental principles? Two are being enunciated today. The first is that there should be a national formula—there should not be postcode allocation of cash up and down the country. The second is that the focus should be on areas of high national need and schools that are exemplars of high national need in the system. I do not envy the Government, nor the Minister, in trying to square availability of cash with those principles, but it is absolutely right that we stick with them.
One thing I am sure about: any attempt to provide every school with above average funding will not work, mathematically.
Lord Nash
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the sense of realism that he brings to the debate. I entirely agree with the point about focusing on areas with financial need; that is why we have developed these opportunity areas, and our regional schools commissioners are particularly focused on areas, many of which are up north, where a particular improvement in education is required.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, gave a rather perfunctory response, if I can be forgiven for saying so, to his question about differential statements at different stages in the educational system. Speaking personally, I have not yet fully understood the rationale behind this. Could he give us a little more clarity on that, please?
Lord Nash
I invite the noble Baroness to submit any thoughts to the consultation process. As I say, the details of the impact that the formula will have on all schools one by one will be available later today and all schools can look at it, but the net effect is that most schools will have a gain and none will lose more than 3%. As I said, small rural schools will gain on average over 5%, and they are the sort of schools that particularly struggle with some of the issues that have been mentioned.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as listed in the register. I formally welcome the new funding formula. As the Minister said, it was long overdue, and it is right that we get it right this time. I particularly want to emphasise, and am very pleased about, the fact that rural schools are going to be supported on sparsity as such. Rural schools provide the libraries and sports facilities for our young people and play a big and vital part of village life. I am pleased that we are also going to initiate a consultation, as it is important that we get people’s views on how they see this formula working out. With the right formula, and a fairer formula, all children should have the right opportunity wherever they live in the country so that, as the Minister alluded to, every child can reach their potential, wherever they live in the UK.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister had a few moments to reconsider his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the whole issue of differentials, because he did not answer it? There will be many schools, as the Minister admitted, which will lose funding and will face difficulties. Given the Question that we considered earlier, where it was suggested that the Government might put extra money into independent schools and money for grammar school expansion, will it be possible for all the schools affected—a large number, as the Minister admitted—to submit to the consultation that they would prefer to have the money shared out?
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, I am sorry to take the time of the House, but I am not sure that I made myself clear with my first question. It appeared to me, from what the Minister said in the Statement, that he was suggesting—indeed, he confirmed it to the noble Lord, Lord Storey—that the amount of money per pupil would be different for children at an early stage in the education cycle, with smaller amounts being available for nursery school children, for example, to that available for pupils in sixth form. Given the amount of attention given by research lately to the importance of early years education, that seems an extraordinarily surprising decision for the Government to have taken. Could the Minister help us to understand it a bit better?
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to get involved on that particular topic but, as noble Lords may know, I have been involved in setting up primary schools. Much as I would like even more money for primary, it is the case that as you go through secondary and have to have specialised teaching in specialised subjects—whereas in primary school it tends to be whole class—there are other costs involved, because classes tend to be smaller, particularly if you are teaching niche subjects.
Despite some of the negativity around these plans, I want to encourage the Minister and the Government to go forward with them. Through the Floreat academy trust that I founded, we have opened schools both in one of the lowest-funded local authorities in the country and in one of the best funded, in inner London. The pupil needs in the schools are not so different, and the requirements in terms of hiring staff are the same, so it is quite palpably unfair. Indeed, for multi-academy trusts that span a number of local authorities, it causes problems in the trust and among the schools if there is a concern—or, if you like, sometimes a sense of unfairness—about what has happened. Notwithstanding the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves with the overall funding element, righting that historic wrong is incredibly important and cannot come soon enough.
Lord Nash
I am grateful for my noble friend’s support for this. Of course, he speaks with considerable knowledge in this area. As I said earlier, the first stage of the consultation was extremely well received and we believe that the second will be, too—but I invite all people who wish to make representations to do so.
Baroness Billingham (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the Minister will be fully aware that there is one group of parents who will be looking at what has been said today and over the last few days with a special interest. They are parents of children with special needs. Quite honestly, they are the ones who are going to be looking at this very carefully and with understandable wariness. I wonder how the Minister will manage to give more information to those children and parents, especially to parents of children who are statemented, who are constantly wary of what the outcome will be as far as their own children are concerned. We need perhaps to focus on that particular area, if possible.
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right about that. I can reassure her that there will be no cuts to the funding for high needs—no per-pupil cuts at all. Indeed, we have increased funding for high needs every year since the high-needs funding system was changed in 2013. This year, local authorities are getting more than £90 million in high-needs allocations.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, can the Minister be a little more specific about special and higher needs? Many years ago, Baroness Warnock identified that 20% of children have special needs, of whom only about 2% have needs severe enough for statementing. I go back to the question from my noble friend about the funding formula for young children. The Government are to be commended for extending childcare, but no one will support moving children with special needs not at statementing level, who are currently educated properly in infant and nursery schools by qualified teachers. We need an assurance that finance for this group of children will be protected. These children form a large percentage of those who fail to achieve later in their school careers because their special needs have not been identified and met.
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is absolutely right and I am sure that she will be delighted to hear that, at the moment, additional-needs funding accounts for 13% for the overall schools budget and that it will be increasing, under these proposals, by an additional £1.7 billion, so it will be 18%. So in fact substantially more money will be made available for that group.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, perhaps I may follow up an answer that the Minister gave to my initial question. He mentioned a figure of £200 million of new money. Why is it not in the Statement, how is it proposed that it should be allocated and where has it come from? I also asked about further education; can he allay any fears that this sector might have as a result of this Statement?
Lord Nash
The way the funding formula has worked means that we have been able to find an extra £200 million. We did not put it in the Statement because we felt that it was more important to focus on the percentage variation overall. As I say, this afternoon we will publish details on a school-by-school basis so that all schools can see where they stand.
National Citizen Service Bill [HL]
Wednesday 14th December 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Citizen Service Act 2017 View all National Citizen Service Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 58KB) - (13 Dec 2016)
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) the number of those participants who have a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010,”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde)
My Lords, on Report, I committed that the Government would bring forward an amendment adding to Clause 6. I have listened to the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have, over the course of these debates, made the point eloquently that we must do all we can to ensure that the NCS is accessible to disabled people.
The Government have put this amendment forward so that Parliament may see clearly, on a year-to-year basis, how the trust is performing in this area. The only way the trust will be able to report positively on the number of participants with a disability will be to work proactively with its provider base. I thank noble Lords for the worthwhile debate on this matter, and for making valid observations throughout. I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this amendment, which, as he said, has been brought forward following discussion in Committee and on Report. The amendment is reassuring in that the Government and the NCS Trust will formally acknowledge the importance of equal access to NCS projects for young people with a disability. We look forward to seeing the guidance that will be given to those running projects. I hope the Minister has taken on board the concerns expressed at previous stages of the Bill that, when reporting on the numbers of disabled young people participating in the scheme, it will be necessary to have a breakdown by type of impairment, because disabled young people are a very diverse population.
Secondly, I still have some concerns about funding. The Government have previously suggested that the current funding system would be maintained where funding for meeting additional needs is paid out on a discretionary basis. I hope the Minister will think further about creating a more transparent system so that it can be scrutinised to ensure that the sums are sufficient.
I thank the Minister for meeting us and listening very carefully to the arguments made at previous stages of the Bill. I fully support this government amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment, which I fully support. I was also very grateful to him for agreeing on Report to amend the charter. It would have been helpful to see the draft charter with the amendments in it, and I hope it will be published soon. When will the charter be amended and published? Will the noble Lord be able to make an announcement about the review regarding a year of service? It was going to be “in due course”, “soon”, “imminent” and “very imminent”, and I wonder if it will be today.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister not only for this amendment but for the way that he has approached the entire Bill and listened to the concerns which we have all raised. I re-emphasise the point about funding because, as we heard at previous stages, there are significant extra costs involved in the provision of services to people with disabilities to allow them to participate fully in the scheme. That is the point of this. It is not just about reporting the numbers and ticking the boxes but about genuine participation. It is important that sufficient funds are allowed and that they do not come from squeezing the providers and simply expecting them to provide the extra support. There needs to be a good dialogue between the NCS commissioners and the providers to make sure that sufficient funds are provided.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
( ) is the subject of a police investigation into an allegation of criminal conduct which could have serious consequences for the NCS Trust.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 2, perhaps I may answer a couple of points raised on Amendment 1. I take on board all the points about funding and the extra costs. I said what I said about funding on Report but, again, I note what noble Lords have said and will take it back to the department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about the charter. It will be available in its amended state before Second Reading in the House of Commons. I wrote to noble Lords stating the additions which we have put in but I agree it would be easier to have it all in one place, and that will be done before Second Reading.
I am absolutely delighted to be able to say that, earlier today, the Minister for Civil Society announced an independent review into young people’s full-time volunteering. The review will look at how to increase participation in full-time social action by reviewing the opportunities and barriers faced by organisations that support young people. There will be an advisory panel, formed of experts from the private and voluntary sectors, and the review is expected to make recommendations to the Minister for Civil Society by October 2017.
On government Amendment 2, the NCS Trust’s paramount concern, as expressed in the royal charter, is the safeguarding and well-being of its participants. Clause 7 currently provides a requirement on the trust to notify the Secretary of State of financial difficulties, as defined by the relevant subsections. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who is not in his place because he is in the Finance Committee, tabled an amendment in Committee and then on Report which would also require the trust to notify the Secretary of State of criminal allegations or allegations of misconduct against a member of staff of the trust or of an NCS provider.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government were unable to accept the precise drafting of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, but we absolutely recognise that he has raised an important point. The amendment is consistent with the intentions of Clause 7 as drafted. In the case of financial issues, the Government, as funder, will likely be the appropriate authority to take action. Where there are safeguarding concerns or allegations of abuse, the police are the appropriate authority to notify, but it will be appropriate to alert government to an investigation that might have serious consequences for the NCS Trust. The amendment has been drafted to that effect. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for bringing this matter to my and my officials’ attention and for making himself available for discussions. I hope the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and admire the concise way in which my noble friend introduced it. I would like to take advantage of his mentioning the review that has been announced today merely to express the hope—this will not come as a surprise to him as I have taken part at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and made similar points on each occasion—that the review will be able to look at the wider concept of citizenship and the possibility of the sort of national citizenship scheme that I advocated on those earlier occasions. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that this will fall within the remit of the committee that is to report in October of next year.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way he introduced this amendment. When the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, spoke to this matter in Committee and on Report, he was clear that his primary concern was not financial misconduct but that wider behaviour was at the heart of this. Charity legislation has had to grapple with this very difficult matter in the past. The Minister may know that during the passage of the draft Protection of Charities Bill we had a lengthy discussion about how one puts this concern into law. I note that this amendment still sits within a clause headed “Notification of financial difficulties”. Will the purport of this measure be made clear in guidance—that is, that it is not about financial matters but about safeguarding and wider issues of that nature?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to pick up on the point that has just been made—the unfortunate elision of financial difficulties with the broader issue raised by the amendment. I am sure that it is not something that we need to trouble with today. The Minister and I discovered that the wording in bold black type in Bills of this nature is not subject to amendment but it can be changed by the Government simply issuing instructions to the draftsman. Perhaps that can be arranged at some point in the magic that goes on behind the scenes, as I think that would remove the difficulty here.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am glad to be able to leave this Bill by agreeing with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. Two things are happening in this clause: one is financial and the other is criminal conduct, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. When the Bill is reprinted and goes to the House of Commons—assuming that it passes today—the new title of Clause 7 will be “Notification of financial issues and criminal conduct”.
I am afraid I shall be less specific with my noble friend Lord Cormack. I know he has long had an interest in citizenship as a concept and in setting up a citizenship programme, culminating in a citizenship ceremony. I am not sure that that comes within the remit of this social action review, which is principally about volunteering, as opposed to citizenship. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot give him that guarantee, but I will take it back to the department and ask the Minister for Civil Society about it, and, if necessary, he can write to my noble friend.
Baroness Byford (Con)
Unfortunately, I could not be present on Report but I think my noble friend Lord Cormack spoke about this matter. As the Minister will remember, the whole idea was to give those participating in the scheme some sort of public recognition. I was not too worried about the wording; I was just keen that other youngsters should be encouraged to take part. The suggestion was not necessarily that there should be a formal ceremony, as there is when people come to this country and take citizenship. This is about young people taking part in citizen service, and it seems a shame to miss the opportunity to have that recognition in what I think is a very good scheme. I am grateful to the Minister and everybody who has taken part for their efforts to make sure that it is a good scheme. The Minister said that he would refer the matter to the department. I am just saying that I hope it does not get lost, and I thank him for his courtesy.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I should be clear on this. I said on Report that the Bill will not encompass citizenship. This is completely different—we are talking about the social action review. I am sure my noble friend is aware of that but I just want to make it clear.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I express my grateful thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill’s passage. I especially thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, from the Labour Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Shipley, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. They all made themselves available for meetings in addition to the debates at the various stages of the Bill. Last, and certainly not least, I thank my private office and all the Bill team, especially Kate Brittain and Tom Blackburn. They are showing devotion to duty to the last by being here instead of going to the office Christmas party. They have made my job very easy. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
It is conventional to respond to the Minister’s thanks, and I should like to do so very briefly. I also thank the Bill team—I am sorry they are not wearing their party hats. It was a privilege to work with them; they were very open and very good at giving us the information we needed. This was a complex enough Bill on its own, and to add to that the complications of a royal charter must have been slightly mad, but that has also happened. We are still waiting for the final draft but I am sure it will come. In addition, the Minister was able to operate the wheels of government machinery to the point that, within about a minute of his standing at the Dispatch Box, he received notification to be able to announce the volunteering review. We had been waiting for that and we are very pleased to see it.
The Minister very kindly mentioned my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Blunkett. I have to pass on a message from my noble friend Lord Blunkett. Because of the changes to the timings in the House today, he is not able to be present, but he wished me to make it clear that he joins me in thanking the Minister and the team for making the Bill work in the way that it has. He is very pleased with the result.
Wales Bill
Wednesday 14th December 2016
(8 years 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 77-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 155KB) - (12 Dec 2016)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, before we begin our Report stage scrutiny of the Bill, I would like to say a few words on the wider context and timing of the Bill’s remaining stages. This House has undertaken very effective scrutiny of the Bill. On our part, the Government have listened to points that have been made and concerns raised, and have brought forward amendments where we believe this will improve the Bill’s provisions and put in place a more robust and lasting new devolution settlement. The amendments that the Government are bringing forward for debate today, and for consideration by this House on the second day of Report in the new year, are testament to this.
There is a need for the Assembly to consider an LCM on the Bill before our Third Reading, which we will certainly do. Should the Bill then be subsequently different from the one agreed to by the Assembly, a new LCM would be needed. A different Bill post 17 January would need a new LCM. I feel duty-bound to mention this difficulty and this pressure, although the attitude of noble Lords is of course entirely a matter for your Lordships’ House.
On the amendments in this first group, Clause 1 gives important statutory recognition to the existence of a body of law created by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers which forms part of the law of England and Wales. In Committee, I committed to reflect further on the spirit of an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that sought to clarify that the body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers forms part of the law that applies in Wales. Having done so, I am pleased to bring forward government Amendment 1, which clarifies that the body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers forms part of a wider body of law that applies in Wales. In considering the wording of this government amendment, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for his wise counsel, drawing on his expertise and experience as a former Presiding Officer of the National Assembly.
On Amendment 2, a non-government amendment, noble Lords will recall that we debated a similar amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the first day in Committee, and this issue was also considered in some detail in the other place. It is clear that is there a strong appetite to keep under review the operation of the justice system in Wales as a result of continuing divergence in the laws that apply in England and in Wales, and to ensure that the distinctiveness of Wales is properly reflected under the settlement provided by this Bill.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we consider the most effective and efficient way to administer justice in England and Wales is through a single jurisdiction. The distinctiveness of Wales can be, and indeed already is, reflected within the single jurisdiction, for example through the National Offender Management Service in Wales and Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service in Wales. This enables, for example, the National Offender Management Service in Wales to work closely and directly with the Welsh Government and with health and education providers to ensure appropriate provision of services for offenders. It allows the courts to be administered directly in Wales by staff in Wales, while ensuring that a consistent approach is taken on justice policy.
There is undoubtedly a distinctive legal identity in Wales. It has two legislatures and a small but growing body of law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers which lawyers and judges will have to specialise in and apply appropriately in relation to devolved matters. Even with increased divergence, the vast majority of laws will, however, continue to apply across England and Wales. A separate jurisdiction would therefore create significant upheaval and huge cost for no good reason.
In Committee, I agreed to take away the points made about establishing a commission to review the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales, recognising the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that it is an evolving picture and the points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about the sources of Welsh law. But for the reasons that I have just outlined, such a review should be within the framework provided under the Bill; that is to say that it should review the functioning of the justice system in Wales within the single legal jurisdiction. I was also clear that a statutory commission would not be the appropriate solution. This would be unnecessarily costly and complex, and would be constrained in how it approached its task.
The principle of reviewing the functioning and operation of the justice system in Wales is sensible. That is why we established the Justice in Wales Working Group to consider the administrative and practical implications for the justice system of diverging law. The group will report to Ministers and the Lord Chief Justice within the next week. I wrote to noble Lords yesterday with an early overview of its recommendations, and consideration is being given as to how best to inform Parliament and stakeholders of its findings.
The group has met a range of people involved in the justice system in Wales, including the judiciary, academics, legal practitioners, professional bodies and those directly responsible for the delivery of justice, including NOMS in Wales, HMCTS Wales, Youth Justice Board Cymru and the Crown Prosecution Service. Those discussions have yielded an invaluable source of information on the current processes as well as providing sensible, pragmatic solutions for managing the justice system as the law continues to diverge in Wales. But the work will not finish there. There will be a continuing need to ensure that justice operational arms and devolved authorities work closely together to deliver effective justice in Wales, building on existing examples of good practice and co-operation.
I understand that one of the group’s main recommendations is likely to be the establishment of a committee to undertake periodic reviews of the operation of the justice system as the law continues to diverge. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the First Minister proposing that such a non-statutory group be established to keep the operation of the justice system in Wales under review on a permanent basis as the administrative arrangements continue to evolve to reflect Wales’s distinctiveness within the single jurisdiction.
The committee will have a focused remit, and will be chaired by a senior official from the Cabinet Office. It will include a representative from the Ministry of Justice and from the Welsh Government. The committee would report periodically to the Lord Chancellor, with both the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales receiving copies. Further consideration will be given to the membership and terms of reference of the committee, and to issues such as how regularly it will report and when it should be established. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the First Minister are meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue, among others. However, the committee will not consider issues relating to the jurisdiction or the devolution boundary that this Bill puts in place. I trust that noble Lords will agree that this committee provides a solid basis through which to ensure that the justice system in Wales keeps pace with the dual influence of Assembly and parliamentary lawmaking within the single jurisdiction.
I turn now to Amendment 3. Clause 2 places the existing convention on legislative consent on a statutory footing—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I hear what he says about jurisdiction. If that is to be the case, can he confirm that although the committee will not deal with jurisdiction, it may make recommendations about the administration of parts of the joint jurisdiction so that, for example, a Wales division of the High Court, for instance, might be established which is separate in devolution terms from the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, so that the High Court could be fully administered within Wales?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I do not want to be drawn into the specifics but, having said that, I understand that that would be within scope. As I say, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the First Minister are meeting tomorrow to discuss the terms of reference more fully, but as I say I understand that that would be in scope.
Again, I turn to Amendment 3, dealing with the convention on legislative consent which we are seeking to place on a statutory footing as the Government committed to do in the St David’s Day agreement. This is also in line with Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016. The convention states that Parliament will not normally legislate on matters devolved to the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the Assembly. Through Amendment 3, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is seeking to broaden the convention by removing the word “normally” from it, and I understand that he will come to address the points on this later.
The use of the word “normally” reflects the convention as it is set out in devolution guidance and its removal from the clause would fundamentally change the nature of what is understood by the convention. That is not what was recommended by the Silk commission or what was set out in the St David’s Day agreement and it is therefore not what we are doing in this Bill.
It is a fundamental principle of our constitution that Parliament is sovereign. As such, it can legislate for matters devolved to the National Assembly for Wales as it can for those devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The convention does not seek to fetter this ability. What it does is make clear that Parliament would not normally do so without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature. The inclusion of “not normally” is essential as it acknowledges parliamentary sovereignty. It also signals that it is not intended to be justiciable, because the courts would recognise that it is for Parliament to determine what is and is not normal in this context.
There may be occasions when it makes sense to legislate on a UK-wide basis. Since the convention was established, a legislative consent Motion has always been sought before Parliament passes legislation applying to Wales which, in the Government’s view, relates to the conferred matters within the Assembly’s legislative competence. I can confirm that this is part of the normal working arrangements between the UK and Welsh Governments that work well, and I expect that to continue.
I turn now to government Amendment 9. Clause 5 inserts new Section 13A into the Government of Wales Act which gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to combine the polls at certain Assembly elections with certain UK parliamentary elections and European parliamentary elections. The exercise of this power is subject to the agreement of Welsh Ministers. We consider that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to be required to consult the Electoral Commission on any regulations made under Section 13A of the Government of Wales Act. This is consistent with the requirement to consult under Section 13 of that Act. Government Amendment 9 achieves this by adding Section 13A of the Government of Wales Act to Section 7(2)(f) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Government Amendments 10 and 105 relate to the current limit placed on the number of Welsh Ministers. Section 51 of the Government of Wales Act provides that no more than 12 persons are to hold relevant Welsh ministerial office at any time. A relevant Welsh ministerial office is defined in this section as the office of Welsh Minister appointed under Section 48 of the Government of Wales Act or the office of Deputy Welsh Minister. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill provides significant powers to the Assembly to be able to increase its size if it so wishes. In this context, it is only right that the Assembly should also have the power to increase the size of the Executive. Amendment 105 devolves power to the Assembly to be able to modify or repeal this limit.
Amendment 10 provides that any Assembly legislation which sought to modify this limit would be subject to a supermajority; that is, it would need to be supported by at least two-thirds of Assembly Members. Given the current size of the Assembly in relation to the Welsh Government, we believe that this provides a sensible safeguard to ensure that any modification or repeal of the limit would have broad support among Assembly Members. We have worked closely with the Welsh Government and the Assembly Commission in preparing these amendments.
Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)
My Lords, perhaps I may respond positively to the amendment introduced in response to the discussion that we had during our first day in Committee on the notion of so-called Welsh law. I commend the Government on their simplicity as well as their inclusiveness by invoking the terms of the law that applies in Wales and pointing to the various bodies of law that apply in Wales, which include the growing body of Welsh law produced by the National Assembly and Welsh Ministers, the law of England and Wales as enacted in this Parliament, the context of European law and the law that is made by precedents and the decisions of the courts. All that is very welcome and I am grateful to the Minister for his response.
It coincides with an equally important statement made in the National Assembly yesterday by Mick Antoniw, the Counsel General, who indicated that to pursue the greater public understanding of the law in Wales, and Welsh law as defined, he intends to instigate a project of consolidation and codification as a pilot. I warmly welcome that statement as well. Therefore, there is a willingness on the part of the legal profession in Wales and its senior government officer in the form of the Counsel General to ensure that the Law Commission’s recommendations for the creation of a dedicated legislative code office and the greater consolidation and codification in an intelligible form of Welsh law are pursued. I particularly welcome as well the decision to publish on the Cyfraith Cymru/Law Wales website further discussion and evaluation of the advantages of consolidation and codification.
That brings me to the other issue I want briefly to touch on: the ongoing response of the UK Government and the Minister to how we progress the analysis and measurement of the effectiveness of the combined jurisdictions and the administration of justice in Wales. I have seen the letter from the Secretary of State to the Welsh First Minister and I had the benefit of a short discussion before I left Cardiff this morning with the First Minister about this, but it is not for me to stand up in this House and purport to represent the position of the Welsh Government. That would be severely out of order.
What the Minister has announced in response to the discussions we have had here and elsewhere has indicated a willingness to understand that there is a balance between the sovereignty of Parliament as understood historically and the increasing democratic accountability and lawmaking potential of the National Assembly. I am looking for a way in which we can move beyond a rather sterile debate where red lines are drawn between various approaches. I am not sure that the committee or commission that the Minister is outlining goes quite far enough on the kind of road I envisage.
I also point the Minister and this House towards the remarkable case presented to the Supreme Court by the Welsh Government which emphasises that, whatever the history of the United Kingdom has been historically, in terms of the relationship between the nations, the only way to operate is by treating the United Kingdom as an association of nations that is now not so hierarchical but more equal. Therefore, in looking for ways we can work within frameworks, is it not time to try to ensure greater equality of representation on commissions, committees or working groups that study these issues? I am not sure that the chairing of a committee by a senior person from the Cabinet Office meets the case. This requires equal representation from practitioners and stakeholders in Wales and in the United Kingdom, and an independent chair.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I want to add one word to what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has just said. I very much welcome what he has told us about the intentions of the Assembly, through its Counsel General, to consolidate the laws of Wales as they emerge. I raised this point earlier in the passage of the Bill. I was a consumer once, as a practitioner. Consumers generally, whether lawyers in Cardiff, Swansea, Caernarfon, London or elsewhere, want easy access to the law of Wales as it emerges from Cardiff; otherwise, they could be sued for being negligent in the advice they give. I welcome it very much and I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling us of those intentions.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 2 relating to the establishment of a justice in Wales commission. I am very pleased to hear that there has been a degree of movement by the Government on this matter. We emphasised in Committee that we were largely dissatisfied, as I think are the Welsh Government, with attempts by the UK Government to address the fact that over time there will be this increasing disparity between English and Welsh laws, albeit they will both still be dealt with under the single England and Wales jurisdiction.
We have heard about this working group and I am glad that we have had a letter to inform us of the Government’s suggestions. We have not had as much time as we would have liked to deliberate on those, but I am pleased that the Government have recognised the need for some kind of ongoing committee or representation to make sure that they are constantly taking the temperature of the changes that will be happening. We made it clear that we were unhappy with this working group; we did not think it had been thought through in agreement with the Welsh Government but had been imposed on the Welsh Government, who certainly did not feel that they necessarily needed to respect any outcomes of it. That is why we are pleased to see the move to a more equitable system in which the Welsh Government will be respected.
Whether the committee outlined by the Minister goes far enough is questionable. We wanted a commission rather than a committee, but I am not going to nit-pick on that point; it is more important to look at the purpose of this group. I am glad that the Minister recognises that there will be, and is already, a distinct legal identity to Welsh laws but a number of points need to be addressed in relation to this committee. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, just made the point that it needs to be seen to be more independent—equidistant from the UK and Welsh Governments. We have moved from the Ministry of Justice having the chairmanship to the idea that it might be somebody from the Cabinet Office but, given that it could be chaired by a representative from the UK Government, we wonder whether it would be better to have a more independent representative chairing the committee.
However, what is more important to me is the need to be clear that the people on the committee should be senior individuals, with the independence and expertise required to carry weight with both Governments. In that sense, it is crucial that both Governments are involved in making sure that they can agree on its membership. Can the Minister give us a commitment today that that will be respected—that there will be a joint agreement on who those experts will be? I should like it to be absolutely clear that this will be an ongoing group, because the body of Welsh law is likely to grow over time. It should not be a task-and-finish group; it needs to be ongoing. I am anxious to hear the terms of reference for this group. Can the Minister give us some indication of them? Would they also be agreed with the Government of Wales? If we are not to get an independent chair, those terms of reference need to be agreed by both Governments.
I hope the Minister will listen to those few requests on this issue. I am very pleased to see that he has come a long way towards us on it. A few tiny paces further would be very welcome but there have been a number of changes, as he suggested in his opening statement. On the new definition of Welsh law and in other areas, the Government have once again kindly listened to the changes that need to be made to the Bill. I thank the Minister for that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I had intended to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, on her Amendment 2, but I am not sure whether she will now pursue Amendment 2 or seek to find a common way forward with the Minister. I will therefore truncate some of my comments on Amendment 2, but I also have Amendment 3 standing in my name in this group.
None the less, will the Minister confirm the permanent nature of the committee he has in mind? The noble Baroness raised that point herself. The difference between a statutory provision and an ad hoc provision is that the latter can easily run like water into the sand and disappear over time. A statutory commission not only would have the permanence that statute gives it but is also likely to have its terms of reference fairly clearly defined in an open way that people can respond to. A far greater degree of attention would also be given to drawing up the body’s terms of reference when it is set up. There is therefore a strong case for it to be a statutory body. But if it is not to be, I would certainly be interested in knowing what safeguards the Minister proposes to ensure that this is not something that is granted now but then disappears. As we know, and as I think the Minister accepts, there will be an evolving context for Welsh law and there will occasionally need to be adjustments to respond to it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely. I firmly believe that a statutory commission is highly preferable to a non-statutory one. I learned that lesson many years ago when I was sorting out the problems of the various bodies that operated in mid-Wales. I introduced an Act in order to ensure that there was a statutory commission. I learned that at the feet of a very great Welshman, Huw T Edwards, who believed that a statute has permanence unless and until it is abolished. It has to make reports. This amendment deals with that issue. A report to Parliament is a great signal to anybody in that field that it has to consider and reflect on the observations of those who come before it. In due course, that report may be debated in London. That is a vital safeguard. I support very strongly the need for a statutory commission.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, at Second Reading, I spoke in support of the maintenance of the single legal jurisdiction in England and Wales. I argued that the body of Assembly legislation can be accommodated for now within that single jurisdiction and that a separate jurisdiction would impose significant upheaval and unnecessary costs on the people of Wales, and that remains my view.
There has been a lot of change in administrative terms. There is already an administrative court to deal with judicial review and similar applications involving the interpretation of the legislation of the Assembly. However, this is a far way off from a wide separate jurisdiction. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who argued that there was no need for procedural change and that the principles of statutory interpretation will remain the same. I would just continue to urge that more cases be heard in Wales.
However, although this is the position for now, I appreciate that the body of Welsh law will grow, with diverging Welsh laws over the years. My noble friend the Minister has listened to concerns that it is sensible to keep under review the functioning and operation of the justice system in Wales. I welcome his announcement that there should be a non-statutory committee— I have to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris—within the justice system that will undertake periodic reviews as the law continues to diverge. I believe that this is a proportionate and considered response that allows for a sensible evolution of the system.
A non-statutory review with a clear remit is the right way forward. The proposed statutory commission would have a broad remit and be unnecessarily expensive and complex to administer. Therefore the proposal from my noble friend the Minister is a sensible way through the issue. It recognises that the vast majority of laws will continue to apply across England and Wales and that there is no great appetite at the moment for a separate jurisdiction, with all the attendant cost and disruption. At the same time, it addresses the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and of other noble Lords that it is important to keep the situation under review as the body of Welsh law grows and the system evolves.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, to which I have added my name. Although the amendment does not perfectly achieve the objectives of those of us on these Benches, I welcome the opportunity it brings to debate this important issue and to allow me to place our objectives on record.
The amendment itself reflects the views of the Silk commission, which recommended that, along with the devolution of youth justice, prisons and policing to the Welsh Assembly, a review of the legislative devolution of other aspects of the justice system should be carried out over a period of 10 years. Sadly, this Bill has not gone far enough to meet any of these expectations, although we have of course seen some movement on the matter of justice today.
Let me make this point and make the opinion on these Benches clear. We have followed and taken part in the debate over whether there is a need for a separate or distinct legal jurisdiction for many years and feel strongly that, sooner or later, the current system will require substantial reform to cope with the growing distinctions between the bodies of law produced by the two Governments. However, we have been cautious over whether now is the time for Wales to have a fully separate system from England. At this stage in the devolution process, we call for a distinct legal jurisdiction for Wales, but while the English and Welsh jurisdictions are still similar, we would support sharing the judicial framework, so as not to wastefully duplicate resources. The consequential massive savings on costs, at a time when Wales would be finding its feet as a legal jurisdiction, would be valuable.
Alan Trench, who drafted a report on behalf of the Wales Governance Centre and the Constitution Unit called Delivering a Reserved Powers Model of Devolution for Wales, said:
“Establishing a Welsh jurisdiction would be a major political decision, and have cost implications if the courts were to be devolved as well”.
We share this view. Our concern is how this can or will be achieved. We cannot allow this Bill to pass to its final stages without setting up a mechanism for further discussions on this vital issue. We owe it to the Welsh Assembly and the people of Wales to begin to sketch out a road map for the future of justice in Wales—a future which will highlight the relevance of the body of Welsh law which exists now and the additional Welsh laws which the Assembly will undoubtedly pass in the future.
I welcome the contents of the Minister’s letter, which I received today, concerning the emerging findings of the Justice in Wales working group. I was particularly pleased to note its anticipated focus on a periodic review of the operation of the justice system under the framework of the Bill, and its likely recommendations on the need to be more effective in considering the distinctiveness of how justice is delivered in Wales.
I am grateful to the Minister for providing further details of the way in which these recommendations will be put into operation. I look forward to reading the details of this debate in Hansard and giving further thought to how the committee that he proposes will operate. I hope he will be able to provide us with further details about the operation of that committee.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, I think this is an occasion on which we should not speak for more than a minute and a half, and that is my intention. I support the Government’s amendment, and I thank the Minister for his consideration, but I make it clear that I regard it as an interim statement—something that will not stand the test of time. As Welsh law develops, the case for a Welsh jurisdiction will become overwhelming. There is an old Welsh song that asks, “Who will be here in a hundred years’ time?”—“Pwy fydd yma mewn can mlynedd?”—and perhaps that is the view that one should take.
At the moment we have a Bill that gives the Assembly reserved powers. The legislative competence of the Assembly is growing, yet we have two different legislatures passing laws for the same small territory. That is a situation unique in the UK and in Europe, and it seems bound to result in confusion and perhaps, in due course, conflict.
The idea of a distinct Welsh jurisdiction is supported by the legal professions in Wales. University law departments see Wales as lacking a legal identity, which actually it had for 300 years after Henry VIII’s Act of Union, so we have to catch up with Henry VIII. The idea is supported strongly by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd; his wording is careful but he has said that it is perfectly possible to have a single justice system with two separate jurisdictions within it. Similar views were expressed by the great Lord Bingham in his work The Rule of Law.
So this is a well-meant interim settlement, a stopgap, that will not last. There is a void in the devolution settlement and eventually we will need a permanent principal settlement, both for the sake of devolution in Wales and, frankly, for the sake of the union of the UK.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I shall raise two short points. One is to commend the Government’s Amendment 1 and the skilled drafting that is revealed by it. However, there is no doubt that the wording that it seeks to replace was too tightly drawn. It looked only at the legislative part of the body of law that makes up, if one likes to put it this way, the body of England and Wales and, looking into the future, following the point by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, it was designed to follow the law of Wales itself as it built up its own common law. What was missing was an acknowledgement that there is a body of law outside legislation that applies in both jurisdictions as part of the great heritage of the common law that England and Wales has exported around the world. It would be very sad if the common-law element was not accepted. So the word “include”, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out, carries with it a great deal. That is not expressed at length, thank goodness, because, as he put it, the simplicity and exclusivity of the language chosen does it all for us. It is very nice to see simple language being used so effectively in legislation, so this is an excellent amendment and I warmly support it.
As for Amendment 3, I recall long arguments during discussion on the Scotland Bill—which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, may have listened to but I am not sure took part in—when we tried to persuade the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to drop the word “normally”, but he refused. The passage that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, quoted from what was said in the Supreme Court last week was just a repetition of the points the noble and learned Lord made in response to those who were seeking to effect that change in the wording.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in debate on this group of amendments. It was a debate of considerable weight. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for his kind words and agree with him about the need for institutions in general to work together, but particularly in the context he mentioned of the legislatures in Wales and here, and his comments about the work of the Counsel General for Wales, Mick Antoniw—his work is much welcomed.
I turn to points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, about the committee—it is the Government’s view that it should be non-statutory—that will look at the judicial arrangements within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Points were also made by the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Wigley and Lord Morgan, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Finn.
First, let me reassure noble Lords that, as I think I indicated, it is intended that this should be a permanent body. We await the recommendations of the working group as to how often it should report. It has been suggested that it could be annually; others have suggested every three or five years. Let us look to see what the committee says. The Government have an open mind on this; we will await the recommendation. The important point is that it will be permanent. I accept the point made by noble Lords that this is an evolving picture; indeed, this is an interim arrangement, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said. In a sense, it is interim between different reports. When the reports come, they will come with advice. It is an advisory committee, but Governments, unless there is good reason, listen to advice—and this will be advice from people with expertise in this area.
I return to the point that there is good will between the UK Government and the Welsh Government as to how this should operate. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting the First Minister to discuss this. I hesitate to say that it is a reserved area or that we feel that there is some veto on it by the Welsh Government, but we can progress only by consensus. I think it is accepted that it needs willing participation by both parties—and that is there, so let us see what evolves.
I should perhaps remind noble Lords that the LCM has not yet been passed, so if the Welsh Government are not happy with it, it will be open to them to turn it down. The LCM is not just about the fiscal framework—although that is clearly an important part—but about the Bill in general.
Welsh law is different in many respects now from English law—I recognise and accept that, and have said so myself before—but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the common law of England and Wales. It is a point worth making that this is not exclusively the property of England; the common-law system belongs to both countries and will no doubt remain a bedrock of the legal system. That is what practitioners in Wales want—and what the law schools there want, so far as I can tell from my conversations. However, they recognise that this is an evolving picture, as do the Government. We need the expertise of practitioners and academics as well as the views of the Welsh and UK Governments in moving this forward. We have sought to craft something balanced. There is a general desire to do something in this area and, although opinions may differ to a degree, we are in the same territory, so I hope that this is acceptable.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in relation to “normally”. I accept that putting something into legislation is very different from having it as a convention. Obviously, we await the judgment of the Supreme Court for all sorts of reasons, as noble Lords know. I indicated—perhaps I should have reiterated it earlier—that we are looking at guidance notes, which will be the focus of attention after the Bill has passed. In the light of the Bill, we will obviously need to look at them anyway. I give an undertaking that we will flesh out “normally” in the context of guidance notes, which is probably a better way of proceeding than legislation.
I hope that I have covered the main points in relation to the non-government amendments and thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Finn for welcoming some of the changes that we have made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her points about permanence; I certainly give reassurance on that.
Lord Elis-Thomas
May I pursue the point that the Minister just made about the non-statutory proposal for this commission between the legislatures and the Governments of the United Kingdom and Wales? Would he like to reflect further on the nature of that proposal? When we come to Third Reading, he might be able to tell us a little more. Does he intend to publish a report from the working group in time for us to be able to discuss it further at that stage?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I indicated on the latter point that I certainly intended that we would publish, in some form, the findings of the group on this matter. Yes, I will reflect on what has been said and say more on Third Reading, when we will be further forward in discussions, to provide extra reassurance. I come back to the point that obviously we want to move by consensus in talking with the Welsh Government and, more broadly, with the National Assembly for Wales. Again, I remind noble Lords that the LCM is a requirement before we can move to Third Reading, so the membership of the National Assembly has to be happy with what is proposed—otherwise, presumably, no LCM will be forthcoming.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the whole debate. The Minister mentioned the fiscal framework in the context of the LCM. I would be grateful if there were a prospect of that being published soon, as he kindly indicated to me, so that the House will have a chance to look at it before considering any amendments to be tabled for 10 January.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in relation to the fiscal framework, things continue to move in a very satisfactory direction in the discussions between the UK Treasury and Government and the Welsh Government. I certainly anticipate and hope that we will be in a position to say much more about the fiscal framework before we rise next week. That is not an undertaking, but it looks promising. If it is not the case, I will write to noble Lords and indicate the timetable.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, it was heartening to hear that the committee can go forward only through consensus—that was a welcome commitment. I am assuming that that means that the terms of reference would be agreed by consensus as well. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case? He also did not address the issue of the membership of the group and whether that would be agreed by both the UK and Welsh Governments. That would be welcome. It is also worth underlining that this is a matter of critical importance for the Welsh Assembly in its broadest form—not just for the Welsh Government. I know that the Government are keen to see the Bill passed, and there is a need for a legislative consent Motion. I wonder whether we can keep open that opportunity to keep talking until Third Reading, just to give the flexibility that the Government may need to ensure that they can get the legislative consent Motion.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
First, as I have said, these things are best done by consensus but it is a two- way street—both sides have to come to it in a consensual way. So I hope that that is the case when these matters are discussed subsequently.
I have gone as far as I can in relation to the discussions that are being conducted by the Secretary of State and the First Minister. They will discuss these things, and I do not want in any way to give an indication from here as to how those discussions will proceed—but I have undertaken to say more on this when we come back at Third Reading. If there is additional information in the mean time that I can convey in written form to noble Lords who have participated in the debates, I shall certainly do that. I ask the noble Lords and noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to universities and public bodies. Their purpose is to address concerns expressed by universities in Wales that their classification as Wales public authorities in the Bill could have wider consequences in terms of categorising them as public authorities. The ministerial consent restrictions do not apply to legislation relating to “Wales public authorities”. This expression is defined in Clause 4 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Bill. The Wales public authorities expressly include the governing body of an institution within the higher education sector within the meaning of Section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and a regulated institution within the meaning of the Higher Education (Wales) Act 2015, other than the Open University.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for raising this issue in Committee. During our debate on their amendments, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord expressed concerns which had been raised by universities based in Wales. They sought to reverse the universities’ classification as Wales public authorities because of concerns that this might suggest that they should be classified more widely as public authorities. This was not the intention of the Government, and the relevant provisions did not purport to have any wider effect—but I had considerable sympathy with the points made, as did my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and I agreed to reflect on the wording before Report. Having done so, I am pleased to bring forward these government amendments— I appreciate that there are many of them—to rename “Wales public authorities” as “devolved Welsh authorities”. The amendments also move universities out of the list of public authorities in Schedule 3, because Clause 4 makes it clear that the listed authorities are public authorities.
Instead, separate provision is being made for governing bodies of an institution within the higher education sector in Wales, so that they are classified as devolved Welsh authorities and the Assembly can continue to legislate in relation to them without requiring ministerial consent. At this point I should also make clear that this will not apply to the Open University, because its activities are not principally or wholly carried out in Wales. It will be a “reserved authority” and the United Kingdom Minister’s consent will be required for the Assembly to legislate in relation to the Open University.
Although we have responded to the particular concerns of universities, I should clarify that it is not our intention that the definition of devolved Welsh authorities and the list of authorities should have wider meaning. They apply only for the purposes of the Bill. Another effect of the amendments is that universities will be taken to be in Wales even if they carry out some activities outside Wales, so long as their activities are carried out principally in Wales. This is to ensure consistency with the approach taken in the Higher Education and Research Bill.
These amendments again demonstrate that the Government have listened to concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee and, where we believe that there is good reason to modify the Bill’s provisions, we are bringing forward amendments to address the concerns. I commend the government amendments in this group and beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I must express our gratitude to the Government for clarifying this position. I also echo the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in saying that there was some rather neat draftsmanship involved. The officials are to be congratulated on the way that this has clarified the situation.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, I was once vice-chancellor of the University of Wales and I think that this is a distinct improvement. It will strengthen the status of Welsh university institutions and I am grateful for it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a governor of Cardiff Metropolitan University. I echo other noble Lords by referring to Amendments 5 and 7; I am really pleased to see that the Government have clarified that they had no intention of changing the status of Welsh universities. It is a status that is rightly prized and valued, not least because it gives them charitable status, which is extremely important from the funding perspective.
Government Amendment 8 deals with the Open University, which the Minister referred to in his remarks. Does he believe that this clarification is adequate and fully addresses the concern of the Open University that it should be seen as operating equally in all four constituent countries? Obviously it would not be seen appropriately as a Welsh institution, but it does not want to be seen as an English institution. It wants to be seen as bestriding all the countries of the United Kingdom. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could clarify that he believes those concerns are fully addressed.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, as for expressing thanks and congratulations, may I, as the first president of Cardiff University, add to those thanks and congratulations from these Benches?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the second group of amendments and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for reminding me that I had not thanked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his very kind comments about the drafting. Obviously they will have been picked up by the people who were responsible for that drafting, as will be the case for the drafting of these amendments.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who has very distinguished service in the education sector in Wales, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments. I thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for his kind comments, too.
On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in relation to Amendment 8 in this group about the status of the Open University, I have looked at this quickly, since it has been raised. I take the point that she made. I would like to take it away and have a look at it. It is open to us to do something in this regard on the second day of Report, as I think it is within the scope of the list of reserved and devolved bodies, and, indeed, mixed-function bodies, which this may well be. Therefore, I will, if I may, take that away without prejudice and have a look at it to see whether we should bring something back on the second day of Report. With that undertaking, I commend the government amendments in this group.
“(1) In this Act “devolved Welsh authority” means—(a) a public authority that meets the conditions in subsection (2),(b) a public authority that is specified, or is of a description specified, in Schedule 9A (whether or not it meets those conditions), or(c) the governing body of an institution within the higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992) whose activities are carried on, or principally carried on, in Wales.”
“(3) In section 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Commission to be consulted on changes to electoral law), in subsection (2)(f), after “64(3)” insert “or regulations under section 13A(1)”.”
( ) the number of persons who may hold the office of Welsh Minister appointed under section 48 or the office of Deputy Welsh Minister.”
“(3A) Welsh legislation may make further provision for the purpose of ensuring that devolved Welsh authorities that receive sums derived from the Fund are accountable.That provision may, in particular, include provision for a devolved Welsh authority to which subsection (1)(a) does not apply to be accountable for its expenditure and receipts in respect of functions for which it receives sums derived from the Fund.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, these new clauses and amendments in my name mainly take forward the recommendations of the Silk commission in relation to water and sewerage.
The Silk report recognised that water and sewerage devolution is a complex issue and that further work to consider the practical implications was needed. Following the St David’s Day agreement, the Government set up the joint Governments’ programme board with the Welsh Government to look at practical issues around Silk’s recommendations and the effect they would have on the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services across England and Wales. It is widely acknowledged that the devolution arrangements around water and sewerage are incredibly complex, and they are not necessarily made any simpler by devolving legislative competence and executive functions along the border. This was recognised, not least by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, in Committee.
The Silk recommendation on the devolution of sewerage was, of course, included in this Bill when it was introduced in another place. However, these provisions would devolve sewerage policy on a “wholly or mainly” basis, and Clause 46 includes a power for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to intervene where an Act of the Assembly or any action or inaction of the Welsh Ministers or a public body could have a serious adverse impact on sewerage services in England. This was to mirror the equivalent existing devolution arrangements for water.
Amendment 39 will amend Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which is inserted by Schedule 1 to this Bill, to devolve both water and sewerage policy as it relates to Wales. While on paper this simplifies the devolution arrangements, it will involve the unpicking of a considerable number of provisions in both primary and secondary legislation to align respective ministerial powers and duties with the England-Wales border. Clause 21 currently provides the necessary powers to deliver this aspect of Silk’s recommendations through secondary legislation by changing the extent of previously transferred provisions. Given this is quite a broad power, Amendment 40 will replace Clause 21 with an order-making power limited to making changes to previously transferred functions relating to water and sewerage. These amendments address a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Wales Bill, and I am very grateful to the committee for its scrutiny of the Bill.
Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, seeks to extend this list of “water-related” functions to include those relating to “fisheries” and “recreation”. These matters are not devolved on a wholly or mainly basis and there are no plans to change any ministerial functions on these matters using this power.
Amendment 39 also places a requirement on Ofwat to make its annual reports to the Welsh Ministers rather than just sending them a copy, as is currently the case. The Welsh Ministers will be required to lay the annual report before the Assembly and publish it. This reflects the current duty on the Secretary of State to lay Ofwat’s report before Parliament and is similar to one part of Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 43 also seeks to amend other provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 as it applies to Ofwat. I appreciate that the noble Baroness will address this later. Part of the amendment would require the Secretary of State for the Environment to seek the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making directions to Ofwat outlining her priorities for keeping the activities of water companies under review. This consent would include directions relevant to reserved matters, such as those relating to competition law, insolvency, mergers and so on. This would therefore give the Welsh Ministers considerable influence over policy areas for which they do not have legislative competence or executive functions.
The amendment requires appointments to Ofwat’s boards to be made jointly by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers and seeks to grant Welsh Ministers joint powers over board members’ terms and conditions with the Secretary of State. There is already a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before making any Ofwat appointment. However, joint appointments would be unprecedented and could prove problematic where the Ministers could not agree.
Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would devolve legislative competence for all water policy, including the licensing of water supply and sewerage licensees. The Government believe that legislative competence for licensing should remain with the United Kingdom Parliament. There would be no obvious benefits for licensees or customers should the Assembly seek to introduce its own separate licensing regime for Wales.
I said in Committee that I would bring forward amendments to replace the controversial Secretary of State intervention powers relating to water. Amendments 45 and 53, tabled in my name, will repeal the water intervention powers and replace them with a power for the Secretary of State for the Environment and Welsh Ministers, to agree and lay before Parliament and the Assembly a water protocol. This will enable both parties to challenge any action or inaction by Ministers or relevant public bodies that could have a serious adverse impact on water on either side of the border. We have gone further than Silk recommends by giving the water protocol statutory backing and making it reciprocal so that the interests of water consumers in Wales, as well as those in England, are protected. However, Amendments 46 to 48, tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, seek to extend the scope of the water protocol to cover all water-related functions, not just those relating to water resources, water supply and water quality. I know that my noble friend has unrivalled expertise in this area but the amendments go much further than Silk recommends on the replacement of the existing intervention powers with a water protocol. As I have already mentioned, my noble friend appreciates the challenges around changing the devolution arrangements as they relate to Wales. I fear that the amendments are unnecessary and would no doubt be seen by the Welsh Government and the Assembly as a retrograde step.
Amendment 50 introduces new duties on the Secretary of State which, in practice, will fall on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and on the Welsh Ministers, to have regard to the interests of water consumers across from their respective borders when carrying out their water functions. The amendment mirrors the definition of consumer interests in Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. This defines the interests of consumers as being the interests of those that receive water and sewerage services from the networks of water companies. It is not affected by, and does not affect, the consumer objective set out in the 1991 Act. The new duties will require both Governments to consider the likely impacts of their policies on customers outside of their respective jurisdictions. This additional check will help ensure that, like the intervention powers, the disputes process contained within the protocol may never need to be used by either Government.
Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the extraction of water from reservoirs, is the same as one tabled in Committee. I acknowledge the massive role that he has had in looking at this area. The Assembly already has legislative competence for environmental controls over abstractions in Wales. It therefore has the ability to introduce such a provision for Welsh reservoirs, should it require one.
The amendments in my name provide a significant package of water devolution to Wales. They deliver a stable, mature and effective devolution settlement by aligning powers over water and sewerage with the national border and replacing the Secretary of State’s intervention powers relating to water with an inter- governmental protocol. Again, this illustrates the capabilities of mature institutions developing these things together. These new arrangements are in the best interests of water consumers on both sides of the border.
I look forward to hearing noble Lords speak to their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, I refer in passing to Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I spoke about it at a previous stage and explained why I did not think it was workable, and I do not propose to add to my remarks on it today. I am a good deal more sympathetic to his Amendment 44, which my noble friend said was not necessary because it could be dealt with by the Welsh Assembly Government. However, it still seems a perfectly reasonable amendment.
I will concentrate my remarks on government Amendments 40, 45 and 50 and my amendments to them. I was delighted to see the amendments in the basic form they are in. I thought that we would probably only hear at this stage about the outcome of discussions between the Assembly and the Government on the arrangements for water in a kind of informal concordat form. I am delighted that the Minister has decided to introduce them all in statute, as that seems a considerable step forward. I will explain why I think that having made that great step forward, it is rather sad that he is not making them as comprehensive and effective as they could be. I will speak from my considerable experience—not always easy in this field—as the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, when I had to deal with exactly these issues on both sides of the border.
Amendment 40, which introduces the modification of water-related functions, as my noble friend explained, refers to “previously conferred or transferred” water-related functions. However, it happens to contain an extremely useful definition, I think taken from the 2006 Act, of what water-related functions mean. Because I want to use this definition later, I inserted something in it—which it is probably not appropriate to do at this stage—because we are dealing with matters previously conferred or transferred. I think that is what the definition confines itself to, although new subsection 2B refers to,
“provisions contained in or made under this Act or any other enactment”.
I therefore raise the question of whether those words in fact apply to the matters I will refer to on the later clauses. My reason for inserting the important matters of fisheries and recreation into the definition here is not so much where it refers back to previously conferred or transferred functions but because I want at this stage to produce a definition of water-related functions, which would be extremely useful in the later clauses. I therefore leave my point with a question about the wording and a comment about why I have inserted fisheries and recreation into the definition.
When we come to the later amendments, this becomes really important. It is equally important in both the later government Amendments 45 and 50, which deal with different aspects of the management of the water environment. When we come to the water protocol, which goes into statutory form, we refer only to water resources, water supply and water quality in England, but equally, we apply the same in Wales. The great thing about the protocol and all the government amendments is that they are of benefit equally to both parties, working both ways. Therefore I do not quite understand my noble friend’s point that if we alter the Silk commission recommendation, which in my view is incomplete, we will somehow upset the Welsh Government. The reality is that the Welsh Government ought to be equally pleased.
On both this and the later amendment, which deals with the way in which we manage these affairs, it makes no sense at all to pick just one or other of the water matters. In managing the water environment and what is going on in the rivers, we are dealing with the whole package, so usefully defined by the definition I extracted from the earlier clause. I seek only to bring together and complete what seems to be an admirable, initial partial proposal from the Government to provide effective management for both England and Wales of the water environment, comprehensively, covering all the things they ought to be looking at, not just water supply and water resources but flood defence and other matters such as the purity of water supply.
I will enlarge for a moment on fisheries and recreation. Fisheries are extremely important here. The main rivers we are talking about, the Severn and the Dee, are both important fishery rivers, as important for Wales as they are for England. Recreation is important in both; recreation and fisheries are related, because canoeists can have an impact on the fishermen, and in the past there have been disagreements and quarrels between canoeists and fishermen. I am happy to say that they are usually resolved, but it may be useful for those managing the affairs to have them involved in the total package of water functions so that they can play a part for the benefit of both Wales and England.
The Government have set about doing an excellent thing in statutory form in giving partial effect to the proper management of water as it ought to be managed, on a catchment management basis, covering all aspects of water management. In a sense, they have baked a cake—I do not know whether it will be a very nice cake—but it is missing a central ingredient. My proposals are trying to be helpful and positive. They ought to be welcomed equally on both sides of the border, and I hope that the Minister will not simply reject them because Silk did not cover them adequately. That is rather a bad reason to reject them. If they can be improved on, it is our job, proceeding with statute, to do so here and now.
I therefore hope that the Minister will at least not reject what I suggest at this stage. I hope that with his usual good sense and courtesy he will say, “I will go away and consider very carefully what my noble friend has said and see if we cannot come back with something”. He may not fully accept my amendments because Governments always say that amendments drafted from the Back Benches are likely to be imperfect in some way.
I thought that I would have to criticise my noble friend’s partial set of proposals on the grounds that officials in his department have simply not given adequate thought to providing the most comprehensive and complete answer, but I find that that is not so. They were studiously obeying Silk. I know that my noble friend played a crucial role in the Silk commission and therefore the St David’s Day agreement, but I suggest that if he is to do a complete, good and effective job, he should listen to my proposals and, I hope, accept them. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he can bring them back in a new or improved form at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, whose interest and involvement in matters relating to water, and particularly water in Wales, has been known to us all for many years.
I wish to speak to Amendments 42, 44 and 49, which stand in my name and deal with water issues. I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group that impinge on these matters.
I say at the very start that, although the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has rightly been praised for the way in which he has handled aspects of the Bill in Committee and, now, on Report, I am bitterly disappointed that we have not been able to get on to the face of the Bill substantive clauses that deal adequately with the three main issues in contention: an unambiguous statement that the National Assembly has total legislative control over all aspects of the creation of reservoirs in Wales, raised in Amendment 44; for the Assembly to have legislative control over all matters relating to water in all of Wales, with powers coterminous with Wales’s border, addressed in Amendment 42; and the unqualified removal of the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene, which I provide for in Amendment 49.
A few weeks ago, we were treated to a fanfare of triumph by the Secretary of State—whom I see standing at the back of our Chamber—who asserted that these matters had been sorted and the vexed issue finally put to bed. I welcome that statement, accepting it at its face value. Even today, I am willing to believe that not only were Alun Cairns, Guto Bebb and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, sincere in that declaration but they genuinely aspired for these changes to happen, knowing how sensitive in Wales are matters relating to water. It would indeed have been a feather in their cap had they been able to deliver what they claimed to have achieved.
Today, at this last opportunity to get these three principles firmly embedded in the Wales Bill, we come to the reality of the situation—that they have, so far, failed to deliver on all these details. There is nothing whatever in the Bill or in any of the Government’s many amendments on Report that states unequivocally that the National Assembly has full legislative power over all aspects of authorising, building and controlling reservoirs in Wales in all their many guises. Yes, we were told in Committee that this would be contained in a protocol and, yes, Amendment 45 provides for a new clause entitled “Water protocol”, but we did not have the opportunity in Committee to see a copy of such an intended protocol and we still do not have one on Report. I assume of course that the detailed protocol will go way beyond the bare framework in this Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred. We do not even have a draft protocol—not even an outline draft protocol—yet we are asked to confirm in legislation a provision about which we have next to no substantive knowledge whatever. We are being asked to rubber-stamp a pig in a poke.
In so doing, we are not even certain that the poke is there. Proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 45 states:
“The Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State may make an agreement (the ‘water protocol’) for the purpose of”—
which it goes on to define in outline but not in detail. It does not state that they “shall” produce a water protocol; it just states that they “may”—or, indeed, they may not. What a weak basis on which to build policies which the Wales Office Ministers paraded as being our salvation. There is no guarantee that there is in fact, in the murky room marked “Wales Office Water Policy”, any poke whatever. It may exist at some time; equally, it may never come into being.
Even if we have this undefined poke of a protocol, what sort of a pig do we find inside? The clause goes on to stipulate that the provisions that will be facilitated by law are to safeguard the well-being of English consumers. It gratuitously adds that the protocol may also safeguard the well-being of Wales—something that would not be needed in any protocol whatever if full control over water in Wales were in the hands of the National Assembly. It gives the impression of being a charter for the meddling by English Ministers and English authorities in matters relating to water in Wales. That is what we have suffered in Wales down the years and it is something that the National Assembly was expected to bring to an end, although now it may not be able to do so. We do not know for certain for the very reason that we do not have a protocol or a draft protocol before us to examine the implications.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, I very strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just said. To leave these matters uncertain and vague, and potentially as, yet again, a source of future bitter conflict, is quite contrary to what the Minister is doing in the Bill.
Two points occur to me. First, it seems that giving the Assembly authority over water is fully consonant with what we are doing in the rest of the Bill—that is, strengthening the regulatory powers of the Assembly over the natural resources of Wales. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, we are—perhaps unintentionally —bypassing this enormous emotive issue in Wales. I would like it to be felt and seen by the citizens of Wales, who are not always clear on the point, that devolution is making a difference. I would like it to be felt that devolution means that there will be no more Tryweryns in Wales and no more treating with contempt the small rural communities for the benefit of others. I expect the Minister to listen with sympathy and I hope very much that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will be supported.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, has just said, I have looked at the government amendments with some care and notice that Amendment 45, which sets out the proposed water protocol, refers to a,
“serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England”,
and, conversely, water resources in Wales. What is not contained there is the impact on the social and environmental character of Wales from any proposal that may be brought forward for the extraction of water from Wales. When the Minister referred to Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—that the extraction of water from Welsh reservoirs shall require the legislative consent of the National Assembly for Wales—he said that we need not worry about that because there is already environmental law that will protect the people of Wales from the building of reservoirs that would have such an environmental or social impact. I would like the Minister to state quite clearly that there will be no reservoirs built in Wales without the consent of the Welsh Assembly. I think that that must be said. Whether it is due to the existing position or the proposals he has brought forward in these amendments, I do not care. I just want it to be absolutely clear what the position is.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I take exactly the same view and support completely everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I have, as the House well knows, spoken with bitterness and rancour on many previous occasions about what happened 50 years ago in Tryweryn in Wales. I make no apology for that. However, I jumped with joy when I had the impression—as I think every other Member of the House had the impression—that this matter had been settled once and for all on the previous occasion. I would have preferred it to have been included in an Act of Parliament as a matter of primary legislation, but I was perfectly prepared to accept the word of the Minister, a most honourable and splendid Minister whom we greatly admire, that this matter would be settled on the basis of a protocol. Now, it seems that that is left drifting in mid-air.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, speaks of a pig in a poke. I have no doubt that he is perfectly correct in that. There is no certitude at all now in relation to this matter. I feel that I acted rather foolishly when, some weeks ago, I, like many others, joined the choir of those on radio and television who revelled in the fact that this matter had been solved and a long-standing injustice had been righted. Although clearly there should be some further undertaking with regard to a protocol, I hope that the Minister will say tonight, in strict terms, that there will be no further Tryweryn—never, never, never.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I defer to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell’s specialist knowledge on fisheries and will restrict my comments to the general. I will also happily endeavour to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, to limit contributions to under two minutes.
I spoke in Committee in support of reserving powers on consents for energy, on the basis that energy policy is so important as to be part of a national strategy determined by Westminster. On this occasion, however, I am delighted to support the devolution of matters relating to water and sewerage to the Welsh Government. As I hope will be mentioned today, and as was so passionately and eloquently referred to in the last debate on the Bill by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elystan-Morgan, this decision should put right a long-standing injustice following the flooding of the Tryweryn valley in 1965.
I welcome the positive steps that the Government have taken to put in place a comprehensive devolution settlement for water and sewerage in Wales. The amendments on this subject brought forward today reflect a clear devolution boundary on these matters. This, in turn, reflects the clearer boundary between devolved and reserved powers which underpins the new model of devolution set out in the Bill. Importantly, it includes a new statutory agreement, the water protocol, between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, setting out how they will work together in future on water and sewerage matters and how any disputes will be resolved. This replacement of intervention powers with a statutory intergovernmental agreement reflects the maturing of the relationship between the two Governments, one that is based on working together and resolving issues by discussion, rather than relying on powers of intervention. I particularly welcome the move to make this agreement reciprocal, with the same duties on the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of consumers in both England and Wales respectively in exercising functions relating to water resources, water supply or water quality.
We must all hope that, as predicted by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the last occasion, these decisions will be welcomed by every party in Wales and will put to rest any lingering rancour and bitterness that the tragic drowning of the Tryweryn valley created.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I was reflecting on how passionate and moving some of the speeches about water were in Committee, and then I remembered that we are also dealing in these provisions with sewerage, and we do not really get quite as excited about that.
I will speak to my Amendment 43, which would introduce a new clause to amend Section 27 of the Water Industry Act 1991. I acknowledge that there has been a degree of movement on the issue of Ofwat and its accountability to the Welsh Assembly. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before giving general directions to Ofwat, the water regulator. Obviously, these directions would be in connection with matters relating to water and sewerage operators in Wales or where licensed activities are carried out using the supply system of water or sewerage operators in Wales. At an earlier stage of the passage of the Bill, I explained why these changes are necessary and I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply. I have therefore changed the amendment I proposed at that point so that his concerns relating to any non-devolved areas of Ofwat functions, which he alluded to again in his opening statement today, would be taken out so that there can be no question of the Assembly interfering in areas beyond its competence in relation to giving guidance on what Ofwat should do in Wales.
It should be emphasised that we are not interested in trying to step beyond the Welsh Assembly competence here. However, we believe that Ofwat should be accountable to the National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Ministers for the function that it exercises in Wales. Without this new clause, Welsh Ministers will find themselves in the bizarre situation of regulating water and sewerage operators in Wales but with the Secretary of State being able to exercise his function of giving a general direction to Ofwat without any consultation whatever with the Welsh Ministers. We do not think that that issue has been addressed yet.
I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the need for an unequivocal statement on the face of the Bill that Wales is now responsible for matters relating to water. We have not got that and it would be good to have it. Sometimes, when it is such a politically sensitive issue, it makes sense to write it into the Bill to make sure that people understand the politics of what is going on; it is not all about law. That is probably true also in relation to reservoirs. I have heard what people have said before, and yes, the Welsh Assembly has the ability through the laws that it has even now to stop reservoirs and a future Tryweryn happening. But let us do it because it is the right thing to do, and because it is politically sensitive and something that people in Wales would really appreciate.
I will deal now with the Government’s amendments that relate to water. Noble Lords will recall, as we have just heard, the much-heralded announcement and fanfare in the media that everything was going to change in relation to water and that we were all thrilled. Yes, the idea that an intergovernmental protocol should be established on cross-border issues including water is a good thing. But it was also made clear that the Secretary of State’s existing legislative and executive powers of intervention in relation to water should be removed in favour of mechanisms under the intergovernmental protocol. The Secretary of State cannot now use those interventionist powers with regard to water. That is a good thing because we can deal with it through this protocol.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for what has certainly been an impassioned debate on an area that I agree deserves passion. I will try to deal with the various issues that have been raised. I turn first to the package of provisions raised by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in relation to his proposals for fisheries and recreation to be brought within the definition of water-related functions in Section 58 of the Government of Wales Act as amended. I obviously listen very carefully to everything that my noble friend says on any subject, but particularly in this area, where I know he has great expertise. I will look carefully again at this area and write to him. But I return to the basic point as I see it, which is that fisheries and recreation are already devolved matters, so there is no issue in relation to intervention in those areas. To use his analogy, the ingredients of the cake have already been passed to the Welsh Government. But I will take another look at it and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Crickhowell
The only thing that worries me about that is that they may have been passed to the Welsh Government when the fish are in Wales, but fish pass up and down the border, in and out of England and Wales, and affect both England and Wales—so there is an issue about cross-border arrangements.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I said, I will look at the issue, but my understanding is that if the fishing is taking place in England it will be a matter for England and if in Wales it will be a matter for Wales—but I will take a more detailed look at that and write to my noble friend and other noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
I turn now to the serious issue about the protocol and Tryweryn. I have said on more than one occasion—I feel that I have said this so often—that Tryweryn is not affected by this legislation. Tryweryn could not happen now. The power in relation to reservoirs in every respect is already with the National Assembly for Wales. I could not have been clearer on that. I understand the importance of the issue as part of our folklore, but it is unaffected by this legislation. One would not expect this legislation to claim to be doing things that it is not doing. That is the basic point—although I understand the passion in relation to this area. I give that reassurance to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Thomas, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Morgan. Tryweryn cannot happen—or if it does, it is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful to the Minister, who is repeating—quite understandably—the points he made in Committee. However, I pray in aid the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, with regard to the benefits of having something written in the Bill. Other declaratory points are included in the Bill—for example, the permanence of the Assembly. That is a declaration and there is no reason at all why there should be not that clear declaration. But it goes further than that. It goes to the question of the total control of reservoirs in Wales—every aspect of them should be under the control of the Assembly. Is the Minister saying that they are?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am saying that. The noble Lord is not often unfair, but I think that he is being unfair on this occasion. The issue in relation to the permanence of the Assembly is an aspiration and a declaration that was sought by his party and agreed by others. This is a very different issue. It is a statement of what this particular Act will do. This Bill as it is at present does not do anything in relation to the situation he is referring to—so it would be most extraordinary to claim that it did.
Turning to the broader issue of the protocol, once again I am conscious that the protocol is clearly important, but the Government have not claimed anything that is untrue or indeed misleading. We have said that the existing intervention powers will be substituted by a protocol. That remains the case. I understand noble Lords wanting information on what the protocol will cover, and perhaps some timetable for how it will be agreed, but noble Lords cannot have thought that I would be able to produce an agreed protocol at this stage of proceedings when we have only just agreed across government that this will be the way forward. I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords with a timetable for how the protocol will proceed and what it will cover, but I hope that they will accept that there has been no misleading in relation to the protocol. What we claimed is what we are delivering.
Lord Wigley
I am sorry to intervene again—I do not want to be a nuisance—but the Bill says that the protocol “may” be introduced. Why does it not say “shall”?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That is a drafting point. The noble Lord makes a fair point, but I can give the reassurance that there is certainly no intention on the part of the Government that this should not happen. It is something that is proceeding. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention. We want this to happen and I believe that it will happen. I am not taking a pessimistic view of this. The noble Lord makes a fair point about the drafting, which I had not picked up—but sometimes these things are referred to as “may” and sometimes as “must”. From our point of view, we regard this as imperative.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
From what the Minister says, it seems pretty obvious that the protocol will not be in existence before the Bill receives royal assent. So one will be left with some sketch on the part of the Minister. That is not the ideal way of doing things, but I am sure that we would be prepared to accept the word of the Minister on what the basic content of the protocol will be.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for that intervention. I cannot be certain, but I anticipate that the protocol will not be decided before Third Reading on our current timetable; that is most unlikely. But as I said, I will write to noble Lords giving an indication of what it will contain and some timescale ahead of Third Reading. I hope that that will be before the second day of Report. Once again I say that I do not think that there has been any misleading on this at all. We said that there would be a protocol to replace the intervention powers. That is the intention. We have good will and we want to get this agreed. We will do it with due expedition, as quickly as we can, but it may take longer than the middle of January, which is what we are looking at. With that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Wigley
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 14 and the other amendments in the group which have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, seeking to devolve the trust ports to the National Assembly for Wales. I have added my name to Amendments 14 to 22.
The noble Baroness’s amendments were debated at the previous stage of the Bill, and I would like to remind the House of a point on which we were all agreed: the fact that Milford Haven is of strategic significance. It is unique in that it has a deep-water facility and handles 62% of all our liquefied natural gas, and as such it is of economic importance to Pembrokeshire. It was included in the Silk report and the St David’s Day agreement. To my mind, the reasoning behind this reservation is totally unclear. On the previous occasion, the Minister implied that the Government were unwilling to compromise on this matter, stating that reserving Milford Haven was an essential part of the Bill. He went on to assure noble Lords that he would take another look at the arguments set out and report back on his conclusions. I look forward to hearing them.
I want to reiterate that I am in full agreement that Milford Haven should be devolved. There is, however, one deeply troubling comment that I wish to raise again, and that is that Milford Haven trust port was at one stage being suggested by the current First Minister of Wales as a base for the UK nuclear fleet. He went on to say that the Government are not considering that option, but using the hosting of Trident as a way to emphasise the strategic significance of the port immediately rang alarm bells. Devolved or reserved, Trident is not welcome in Wales, and I urge both the Government and the Opposition to put on the record today that they do not intend to acquire powers in order to justify locating it there. However, I am very much in agreement with the main points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, in Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 14 to 22 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and to Amendments 23 to 26 in my name, on the devolution of ports to Wales. The difference between my amendments and the Government’s position is that I believe that all ports in Wales should be devolved. The Bill as currently drafted does not conform with the recommendation of the Silk commission on the devolution of ports to Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just emphasised.
To be fair, the Bill allows the Assembly to legislate on ports and harbours, which is a welcome move, but there remains this category of reserved trust ports on which the Assembly cannot legislate and over which Welsh Ministers cannot exercise any powers. That category seems to be arbitrarily defined by a certain turnover in relation to ports. In fact, only one port in Wales falls within the category, and that is Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire. It strikes me as very odd that the UK Government are seeking to control this one particular port.
So far, the justification given is that Milford Haven is a strategic energy port because it handles 63% of all the liquefied natural gas that comes through UK ports. As I mentioned in Committee, this justification is particularly odd as the UK Government made no attempt to cite energy security as a policy driver for investment in Milford Haven to support the sale of the Murco refinery in 2014. Equally strange is the fact that the UK Government did not seek to control the trust port of Aberdeen, which has significant strategic energy value due to the importance of North Sea oil to the United Kingdom. There are definite double standards in this. In Scotland, all ports and harbours are devolved, while Wales is once again being treated as a second-class country.
I would also argue that devolving powers over the trust port at Milford Haven is incredibly important for the economic development of the area, and it should be within the power of the Assembly to help promote growth in Pembrokeshire. It is the Assembly which has responsibility for economic development.
Some powerful points were made in Committee by noble Lords, including one by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on the issue of safety at the port. Indeed, the very fact that so much fuel comes through the port makes safeguarding an essential issue. The emergency services, both ambulance and fire, are already devolved. I want noble Lords to recall the “Sea Empress” oil tanker, which in 1996 ran aground just outside the port of Milford Haven. Protecting our environment is equally as important as the safety issues, as is the policing of the legislation for both safety and the environment at the port. In order to have a truly holistic response to accidents, whether on safety or environmental grounds, it should be acknowledged that one umbrella of responsibility makes more sense.
Noble Lords can imagine that, if an accident such as that involving the “Sea Empress” happened today, there would be a great deal of passing the buck between the UK Government and their accountable body, the port authority, and the Welsh Government, who are responsible for environment and safety. This was not an issue in 1996 because the Assembly did not exist. I am always concerned that, when there is not an absolutely clear line of responsibility, where does the buck stop? In a case like that of the “Sea Empress”, noble Lords can imagine how the bodies would pass the responsibility for it between each other for years.
The interrelated issues of the economy, the environment and safety, together with the interaction of local communities and the local authority, all need to be co-ordinated. Surely it would be easier and more effective to co-ordinate them at the Wales level. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this point and allow the port at Milford Haven to come under the control of the Welsh Assembly, as recommended by the Silk commission.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, it really rankles that, yet again, something which is taken for granted in Scotland is viewed as not appropriate for the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government. There is no logic to this decision. There might be an excuse, but that is different from logic. There is every reason to take a comprehensive approach to managing the ports in Wales on very good strategic and economic grounds, along with developing a strategy in relation to them as a whole. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned in Committee, there is the importance of the safety aspects of this issue. So I would say to the Minister, who I realise understands only too well the importance of ports to the Welsh economy and who understands extremely well the economy of that part of Wales, that even at this late stage of our consideration of the Bill he should give this matter further thought and come back at Third Reading.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene again on this issue. I have long experience of dealing with the port authority and sometimes the relationships were very good. One particular person was running the authority during my early years as the local MP with whom I had an absolutely first-class relationship. However, they were not always as good. What people ought to understand about the port authority is that it will not be the Welsh Government, or indeed the UK Government, actually operating and controlling things; that is very much for the port authority, which has extensive powers. I once had a profound disagreement with the authority over a campaign that I and others fought on the safety issue because we were deeply concerned about some of the actions being taken not by the Government but by the port authority for its own commercial or other reasons.
I wonder whether there is not some solution here. I understand entirely the crucial fact that the gas terminals are at the end of pipelines that carry gas into England and form an important part of our energy package. Surely it would be possible for some agreement to be reached by the Government with the Welsh Assembly that would take the authority for dealing with the strategic link and the gas facility out of the specific responsibility of the Welsh Government and make it a separate strategic effort, while somehow allowing the Welsh Government much more involvement for the reasons that have been outlined in the handling of such matters as safety within the port.
The fact is that the town of Milford, the oil facilities and the people who live around them on the south of the haven, as well as Neyland and Pembroke Dock, are all close to areas where, if an accident occurred, the impact would be enormous on the local population. So there is a real issue here, and I have a good deal of sympathy with the view that these matters should not necessarily be in the hands of a trust port whose powers were established a long time ago in very different circumstances. I wonder whether the powers and authority of this port should not be looked at again, perhaps jointly, by the Welsh Government and the UK Government, because there are practical issues here that go back to the original creation of this facility, when the circumstances were wholly different.
I understand the vital strategic issue, which needs to be covered and dealt with adequately, but I hope that the Government will give at least some further thought at some stage—whether they can do it during the passage of this Bill I am not sure—to the way in which these issues are managed and handled in the port of Milford Haven.
Lord Hain
My Lords, following that very interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, perhaps I may ask the Minister to explain exactly how all the other issues to do with Milford Haven port are devolved to the Welsh Government. Economic development—which is crucial in the area—environmental questions, safety issues and matters relating to the sea are all devolved, yet, uniquely, Milford Haven port is excluded. If the sole reason for that is the energy question—one can understand the strategic importance of the LNG capacity there—surely the vehicle to address that might be a protocol. Since the Minister has wheeled out the protocol—I do not mean that pejoratively—in a way that is meant to satisfy the legitimate demands for control over water within Wales, why could that not be the vehicle for addressing the strategic energy question, while ensuring that the Welsh Government have full control over Milford Haven as they have over all other ports?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments. Obviously, the Government have some amendments in this group as well, which I will move in due course.
Amendments 14 to 26 and Amendments 86 to 89 are opposition amendments. We debated amendments that were very similar to Amendments 14 to 26 and Amendments 86 to 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in Committee on 7 November. The amendments would remove the reservation of reserved trust ports from the Bill and so transfer functions to the Welsh Ministers and devolve legislative competence for these ports to the Assembly in the same way as the Bill does for other ports wholly within Wales.
During that debate, in light of our discussion and the points raised by noble Lords, I undertook to take another look at the reservation of reserved trust ports without prejudice—that is, not saying that I would come along with revised proposals. I am now convinced of the strategic case for excluding Milford Haven and will seek to explain why.
Trust ports have unique governance arrangements. They are run by independent statutory bodies whose role is to manage, maintain and improve a harbour. Trust ports operate on a commercial basis, generally without financial support from government. Harbour authorities for trust ports have no shareholders but are accountable to, and run for the benefit of, their stakeholders, who include port users, local communities and local economies as well as local government and national Governments. Any profits are reinvested by the harbour authority in the port for the benefit of those stakeholders. Indeed, it is the duty of a trust port board to hand on the harbour to succeeding generations in the same or better condition. There are five trust ports in Wales, at Caernarfon, Milford Haven, Neath, Newport and Saundersfoot.
In light of the unique governance arrangements that I have just outlined, the Government believe that trust ports that have a nationally significant role in Wales should continue to be accountable to UK Ministers, which is what the reservation of reserved trust ports in the Bill achieves. During our debate on 7 November, all noble Lords who participated were in agreement about the importance of the port of Milford Haven. The significant volume of liquid bulk cargo—that is, oil and oil products, and liquefied natural gas—passing through the port each year is a clear testament to that. The oil refinery and fuel storage facilities at Milford Haven, which are dependent on the port, play an important national role in securing supplies of road and aviation fuel in Wales and England.
Perhaps I may at this stage take issue with something that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, stated in relation to the Murco refinery. I am in a position to say something from direct experience because I was chair of the Haven Waterway Enterprise Zone when the Murco refinery was threatened with closure, which sadly came to pass. The two Governments, the Government in Wales and the Government at Westminster, worked closely and amicably in relation to this; there was no disagreement. As chair of the enterprise zone, I had frequent discussion with the Department of Energy and Climate Change, as it was at the time, and the Minister there. There were also discussions with the relevant Welsh Minister. It was all perfectly amicable. So on matters relating to Milford Haven, I would not want noble Lords to think that the two Governments are always at loggerheads on these issues; that was certainly not the case in relation to the Murco refinery and on other issues that came up while I was chairman there over a period of some two years.
It is because of the importance of the oil refinery and fuel storage facilities at Milford Haven, dependent on the port, that we take the view that it is of strategic significance. The turnover threshold in Clause 32, referred to by the noble Baroness, is used to determine which trust ports in Wales are reserved trust ports and is based on a turnover threshold in the Ports Act 1991. Although the context is different, it seemed to be a suitable test for determining which trust ports in Wales are nationally significant and so should be reserved.
I accept—I note the spirit of contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others—that Welsh Ministers will remain a very important stakeholder for Milford Haven given their devolved responsibilities for other matters, such as for economic development, surface transport and marine licensing. I say once again that it is wrong to anticipate that every time a serious issue arises the two Governments will not work together. I refer noble Lords by way of example to the situation in relation to foot and mouth. That would no doubt be the case if there was some national emergency involving both Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. The two Governments would work successfully together again where there was a need for it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, if I have understood the point correctly, this is in the context of our firm belief that the port is of strategic UK significance but that there are occasions when it is absolutely right that the Welsh Government need to be involved. They are a significant stakeholder in the port at the moment and—again, I can speak from experience of chairing the enterprise zone—are involved very much in issues there. It is not that the two Governments were at loggerheads; that is far from the case. It seems that we always anticipate that the two legislatures and the two sets of Ministers will always be at each others’ throats; that is far from the case. These two mature institutions very often—indeed, most often—work very successfully together. That is the point I am seeking to make.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
May I just develop this point? I remind noble Lords that the rule on Report is that they should speak only once—but I will give way since I am sure that it is a relevant contribution. I shall write to noble Lords on issues that have been discussed to explain how the relationship with the Welsh Government works, the matters they are involved in and, perhaps, how we can move that forward to ensure that we have harmonious relationships.
Lord Hain
I am grateful. Incidentally, that was an intervention, not another speech. If the Welsh Government and the UK Government will not be at loggerheads on things, why would the Welsh Government be at logger- heads with the UK Government on the supply of LNG, which is just as important to Wales, proportionately, as it is to the rest of the UK? I do not understand the logic of the Minister’s point.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, we could disagree on this issue until the cows come home but the basic point, which I think the noble Lord would accept, is that some matters are rightly retained as reserved matters for the United Kingdom Government while other matters are appropriate for the Welsh Government. It is our belief that the significance of this port in UK terms means that this should be a reserved port and not a devolved port. We disagree on that, but that is the basis on which we are moving forward, recognising that the Welsh Government have a role to play in relation to Milford Haven—a role that they fulfil at the moment. As I say, I will endeavour to ensure that I write to noble Lords to explain how that relationship is working at the moment.
In our debate on 7 November, some noble Lords questioned the matter of the devolution of strategic ports in relation to Aberdeen, which has been cited, quite appropriately, I acknowledge, in relation to Scotland. That was, of course, a devolution arrangement that was put in place in 1998. The Government’s thinking has developed since then and the Wales Bill includes the important concept of reserving to the United Kingdom Government trust ports that are nationally significant. I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others that that is the reason we seek to retain Milford Haven as a reserved port.
Government Amendments 27 to 35 are concerned with reciprocal requirements for the consent of the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers imposed by Sections 42C and 42D of the Harbours Act 1964. These requirements relate to harbour orders and schemes made under that Act which amend existing harbour orders and schemes made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers. The amendments are needed because the consent requirements are not consistent with the new devolution settlement for harbours in Wales set out in the Bill.
The amendments remove the reciprocal consent requirements. The transfer of harbour functions to the Welsh Ministers in the Bill will mean that the Welsh Ministers, not the Secretary of State, will exercise these harbour order and scheme-making functions for all harbours wholly in Wales, apart from reserved trust ports, which I shall refer to as “devolved harbours”. This would cover issues such as improvements to harbour facilities in relation to devolved harbours. The Secretary of State or his delegate could make such orders or schemes relating to devolved harbours only in very limited circumstances. In all such cases, the Secretary of State or his delegate will have a duty to consult the Welsh Ministers before making such a scheme or order, including under new provisions in the amendments.
Also, it would be unduly restrictive if Welsh Ministers were required to obtain consent from the Secretary of State when making, for example, a harbour revision order for a devolved harbour that alters the effect of a harbour revision order made for the harbour by the Secretary of State before the new devolution settlement. Other amendments in the group contain consequential amendments applying to Clause 36—provisions supplementary to Clauses 34 and 35—covering the Secretary of State’s new consultation obligation introduced by the amendments.
Lastly, Amendment 31 removes wording from Clause 36(1) which carries an exception from the duties to consult where consultation is not reasonably practicable. This amendment has been requested by Welsh Ministers.
Government Amendments 54 and 110 to 114 fulfil a commitment I gave in Committee to examine further the fisheries management functions being transferred to Welsh Ministers to regulate fishing vessels outside the Welsh zone. Amendment 54 introduces a new clause that transfers additional fisheries management functions to Welsh Ministers. The functions replicate, to a large extent, those already exercisable in the Welsh zone which were transferred under the Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010. The effect of the amendments is that Welsh Ministers will have available to them the functions they require to manage Welsh vessels wherever they are. They also preserve the United Kingdom Government’s requirement to retain a symmetry between the concurrent functions available to the Secretary of State in relation to Scottish and Welsh fishing vessels operating outside their respective zones. Welsh Government officials worked with their colleagues in the Wales Office and in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to recommend these amendments, which we are pleased to present.
Finally in this group, Amendment 55 requires the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers while setting strategic priorities in relation to the Secretary of State’s delivery, in Wales, of functions under two pieces of primary legislation: the Coastguard Act 1925 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. In practice, each of these functions is carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport. While day-to-day operational and incident response decisions are, quite properly, the responsibility of the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Secretary of State is responsible for setting its strategic priorities. Areas covered include the 24-hour search and rescue helicopter service provided by the coastguard and the promotion of seafarer health and safety standards.
Noble Lords will be aware that statutory provision has been made for consultation between the Scottish Government and the Secretary of State in the Scotland Act 2016, and in Committee I agreed to reflect on the case for making similar provision for Wales, in line with the amendments brought forward in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and by the Smith commission in respect of Scotland. I am pleased to say that we can make such provision, and this amendment is the result. I commend the government amendments in this group and urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Wigley
I thank those who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Randerson, the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Hain, and, of course, the Minister. On Milford Haven, I think that there is a feeling across the House that there is a greater role for the National Assembly and the Welsh Government in this matter, particularly when one considers that they have responsibility for the safety and civil emergency aspects. There are questions of coherence in manpower planning, in transportation and road planning and in the economic infrastructure of the whole area. None the less, we note the points that the Minister made and it appears that we will have to agree to differ on this. I thank the Minister for government Amendments 54 and 55 on fisheries, which are a response to amendments we tabled in Committee and which will be welcome in Wales. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Where the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers have made an order under section 42A of the Harbours Act 1964 delegating the function of making a harbour revision order, the duty in subsection (1) or (2), so far as it relates to the function mentioned in subsection (4)(c), applies to the delegate as it applies to the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.”
“Exercise of functions in relation to two or more harbours
(1) Where—(a) a Minister of the Crown proposes to exercise a relevant function in relation to two or more harbours, and(b) at least one of those harbours is a harbour that is wholly in Wales and is not a reserved trust port, the Minister of the Crown must first consult the Welsh Ministers (except where section 36(1) applies).(2) Where a Minister of the Crown has made an order under section 42A of the Harbours Act 1964, the duty in subsection (1) applies to the delegate as it applies to a Minister of the Crown.(3) In this section—“relevant function” has the same meaning as in section 34;“reserved trust port” has the meaning given in section 32;“Wales” has the same meaning as in section 34.”
“Consequential amendments to consent requirements in Harbours Act 1964
(1) In section 42C of the Harbours Act 1964 (consent of Welsh Ministers for certain orders and schemes), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The references in subsections (1)(c) and (2) to a statutory provision of local application do not include a harbour revision order, a harbour empowerment order or a harbour reorganisation scheme.”(2) In section 42D of that Act (consent of Secretary of State for certain orders and schemes), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The references in subsections (1)(c) and (2) to a statutory provision of local application do not include a harbour revision order, a harbour empowerment order or a harbour reorganisation scheme.””
Lord Wigley
Lord Wigley
My Lords, here we go again. I rise to move Amendment 36 and to speak to Amendment 37, which is coupled with it. I shall speak to Amendment 60 a little later.
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement in the previous stage of the Bill that the limit placed on energy projects is in fact arbitrary. However, he failed to outline in any way why such a low arbitrary limit is necessary. I am sure that I will catch his eye, or his ear, in a moment so that he will be able to respond to that point in due course. The Minister rightly made the point that if you have to put a limit somewhere it will always, in some respects, be arbitrary. An obvious solution is to remove the limit altogether, as is the case in Scotland. Does he not think it bizarre that the Government are happy to use words such as “arbitrary” to justify their imposition of a regime which means that Welsh people will not decide how and when Welsh resources are developed? I do not want to replay the battles already fought. However, I am keen to respond to some points that he made during our last discussion on this matter.
First, as he knows well, and as I have already made clear, the Silk commission serves as no cover to justify the failure to enhance the Bill, since the Government have blatantly ignored unanimous Silk recommendations on other matters. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Although I accept that the 350 megawatt limit was agreed in the cross-party commission, that was in the context of an understanding that other parties would support the devolution of a range of policies in other areas and part of a carefully constructed compromise, as he will well recall, several aspects of which are now being sidelined. The Government have ignored the recommendations of the commission on policing, youth justice and rail infrastructure, among other areas. Just to cherry pick from the commission’s recommendations makes a mockery of the process.
Secondly, I am pleased that the Minister has agreed that I was right to highlight the absurd situation of the tidal lagoons, which means that the already approved 320 megawatt Swansea Bay lagoon would be within the threshold, while almost all the other proposed lagoons would not be within the competence of the Assembly. That makes it impossible for the Assembly to develop a coherent expertise, recognised by all people in such matters. Since we already have projects on the stocks in this area and close to each other in size, it really begs the question: seeing that it is arbitrary, why should it not be so at a slightly higher level?
I do not agree with the Minister that the 350 megawatt limit is the only way to do things, as he said, even when it comes to tidal lagoons. He justified the arbitrary 350 megawatt limit by intimating that some strategically important energy projects were not safe in the hands of Wales—at least, that was the implication. Of course, it is the policy of my party that the people of Wales should decide on how all its resources are utilised, regardless of technology or size. However, I emphasise that the Minister need not be concerned about strategically important energy projects being scuppered by Wales. Nuclear energy is already listed in the reservations. A limit well in excess of 2,000 megawatts would still fail to capture much of what is considered as strategically significant by way of energy generation. Fundamentally, a more sensible and pragmatic approach to these energy limits would create a clear, lasting devolution settlement. Even more importantly, in practical and pragmatic terms it would be easier for the developers and for the expertise within the Assembly.
The amendments in my name, unlike the previous ones tabled by Plaid Cymru MPs, recommend a 2,000 megawatt cut-off offer. This would still not encapsulate many of the projects which I had hoped the Government would recognise should be decided on by the Welsh people. But I hope that it offers a more amenable arbitrary limit—yes, arbitrary, as the Minister put it—which would increase Welsh people’s ability to decide how Welsh resources are utilised and give the Assembly a coherent role. The 2,000 megawatt figure, although undoubtedly arbitrary, has been inspired by the Labour amendment in Committee; I readily acknowledge that it proposed the same figure. I therefore hope that I can count on their support for this amendment. Can the Minister outline how any arbitrary limit, be it 350 megawatts or 2,000, can be increased without the need for primary legislation in a pragmatic and sensible fashion, or adjusted in any way that circumstances require, to ensure that we get to a point where Wales’s natural resources are decided on by Welsh people to the maximum possible extent?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 57 and 58, which seek to amend government Amendment 56. These amendments have been bizarrely grouped with the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just spoken. These amendments are about fixed-odds betting terminals. We were really pleased when the Minister suggested in Committee that he would be minded to devolve the regulation of fixed-odds betting terminals in Wales, and we are grateful that an amendment has been tabled by the Government on this issue. However, a detailed reading of the amendment reveals that it does not go nearly far enough in addressing the issue of concern to us.
The government amendment will enable the Welsh Government to address fixed-odds betting terminals in Wales under the Gambling Act 2005. It states that Welsh Ministers may legislate for the number of machines in the betting establishment for which the maximum stake exceeds £10. In other words, the only machines that would come under this provision are those where you have to spend at least £10 every time you play. At least, that is my understanding of the Government’s amendment; perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong on that point.
Under the current Gambling Act, up to four machines are authorised per betting premises. Our amendment would enable the Welsh Government to make laws that would affect machines where anything over £2 could be gambled. I am not saying that we need to regulate the 2p slot machines in Nessa’s Slots in Barry Island where, like thousands of others, I frittered away my coppers in years gone by, but we need to lower the amount that can be gambled at a time. This is something which has exercised many experts in the field. We are aware that a review of betting machines is being undertaken by the UK Government, and this issue has been taken up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. There seems to be all-party support to reduce the maximum bet to £2. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the amount could be reduced if the matter is devolved? It would be good if the Minister could indicate that to us. If the amount could be amended here, that would be the ideal situation, but if not, will he give us an indication about how it could be done in future?
However, that is not my biggest concern with this amendment. My real concern with the Government’s amendment is that it would apply only to new betting premises. In other words, all the betting shops that exist in Wales today would be entirely unaffected and the Welsh Government would have no powers whatever over fixed-odds betting terminals currently in Wales. I know what the Government will say. They are going to say that that is what the Scotland Bill said. That is not good enough. Just because the SNP was not keeping an eye on its Bill does not mean that we will wave this Bill through when it is fundamentally flawed. It is important that we take note and the Scots should take note as well. They were not keeping an eye on their Bill. They flagged through the Henry VIII clauses as well. A message should be given to the SNP that it should step up and keep an eye on things.
Gambling is causing massive social, economic and health problems in Wales, and we want the tools to deal with them. Research conducted by the Gambling Commission identified 1.1% of the Welsh population as problem gamblers. Figures show that nearly one-fifth of problem gamblers in the UK have reported debts of between £20,000 and £100,000, while counselling sessions increased by 29% between 2013 and 2015. This is happening now, it is an epidemic and we need to do something to stop it. These machines are phenomenally popular. It is estimated that on average £3,000 a day is wagered on the 1,500 terminals in Wales. You can lose up to £100 every second on these machines. The gambling prevalence survey, a major study of British gambling, found that these machines are most popular among young, male, low-income gamblers, particularly the unemployed, as well as among students and those from ethnic minorities. Where have bookmakers decided to concentrate their efforts? They are putting them in high streets in poorer areas. To date, the UK Government have not done nearly enough to curtail the proliferation of fixed-odds betting terminals, so if the UK Government are reluctant to act, they should give the Assembly the freedom to act to reduce the maximum stake to £2 and make sure that the Assembly can act retrospectively, not just in the future. The problem exists now, and the Assembly is expected to wipe up the mess.
I guess I should be grateful that the Government have brought something forward, but I am afraid that, in its current form, I am disappointed with the amendment. I hope the Government will take on board our amendments on this important issue.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has been led astray by a very faulty piece of wording here on which I have written to the Minister. I think it is not a question of a minimum bet of £10. I believe you can nominate any value you want down to 20p on any machine. It is not a minimum bet; it is a minimum bank that you have to open to have the right to play on the machine. That is £10. Then you can have any value of stake you want within it down to 20p, even perhaps 10p in some instances. The confusion comes from the difference between a minimum stake and a minimum bank that you can buy into on any machine. If we could get that clear once and for all, this problem would largely go away.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I start by making clear that I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the value for money of the repairs to Buckingham Palace, which I see as a major tourist attraction and therefore well worth the investment.
I agree, however, with his views on the limits to the Assembly’s powers on energy and support his amendments to increase them. For many years, it has been Liberal Democrat policy to give the Assembly power over energy, with the exception of nuclear energy. It is essential that we keep pressing this issue because it is so illogical to have this 350 megawatt limit plucked— I understand why—out of the air.
Will the Minister supply us with further information on fixed-odds betting terminals? We have had some very interesting suggestions. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that she is unclear about issues associated with gambling. It is certainly not something on which I can speak with any authority, but I am sure we need to make sure that the powers given to the Welsh Assembly are sufficient to be meaningful. The only reason for giving it powers over this would be to allow it to exert those powers in a way to change behaviour and deal with a very serious problem. I would be very grateful for any further information that the Minister can give us about the intention of this amendment and about, for example, the percentage of terminals that would be affected and the percentage of gamblers whose activities would be affected by this amendment.
I am very grateful that the Government have made a concession on this. It is something that has been pressed by many noble Lords, and not just in the context of this Bill. However, it is important that it should be a meaningful concession.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I will intervene for a short moment, with real apologies for not having been here at earlier stages in these discussions—I fear that I have duties that do not make it possible to be here all that often. I take the definition of the £10 bank very seriously to heart, but that is not the issue for me. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on recognising that there is a problem and bringing forward a government amendment that reflects that. The curious paradox for me is that having recognised there is a problem, on the basis of fixed-odds betting machines as they currently exist, the one area that devolved responsibility does not address is the very part of the problem that creates the discussion in the first place. To have an amendment that provides powers for the Welsh Assembly to look after what happens in the future, when the problem that has generated the debate cannot yield a similar level of control, seems to me a curious paradox. So while thanking the noble and genial Lord the Minister, who has handled things so magnificently in these debates, I just urge him to think about something that is paradoxical but could be tidied up. If retrospective responsibility could be introduced, that would make it a much better amendment from the Government.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port is rather charitable, indeed flattering, to the Government in referring to their creation of a paradox. I would say that this is simply confused and bad policy-making and endorse what my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely said at the outset. First, it is not a good way to treat the House for the Government to insist on mixing up, in one group, amendments on this variety of topics—energy, the Crown Estate and gambling. This is not a basis for rational scrutiny of legislation and it should not have happened.
I want to dwell on the gambling issue for only a moment, as much more important is the confusion in the handling of it. To make this distinction between different sizes of bank or stake—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord James, for his elucidation of the issue—and to attempt to make a distinction between responsibility for supervision of machines that are already in Wales and for machines that may in future be in Wales is to fragment responsibility. If the Government are going to devolve responsibility for a very important social issue, they should devolve it properly and produce a coherent solution. Fragmenting responsibility can only make for confused and ineffective policy-making. This issue matters far too much to Welsh society, and in particular to the prospects for significant numbers of young people in Wales, and we need a coherent and proper policy for it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I will address the remarks on this group of amendments and I thank noble Lords who have participated in the discussion. First, I will deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in relation to the grouping of amendments by pointing out that it is entirely possible through the usual channels to decouple amendments. That has happened in at least one other group, so I do not think the accusation was entirely fair. It is open to other parties to challenge that.
Initially, I will address government Amendment 38 to Clause 37, as well as Amendments 36 and 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The government amendment is a technical one to address concerns raised by the Welsh Government. Consistent with the principle of establishing a lasting settlement, it simply acknowledges that future Acts of the Assembly may prove relevant factors in the exercise of consenting powers under the Electricity Act 1989. This addition simply amends that Act accordingly to allow for that possibility.
The noble Lord’s amendments seek once more to reopen the basis on which the Government endorsed a key recommendation of the Silk commission. I note what the noble Lord said about the commission, but he will know that the legislation is essentially based on the St David’s Day agreement, which took forward a lot of the Silk commission recommendations but not all of them. What is in the Bill is essentially based on the St David’s Day consensus rather than on the Silk recommendations, although in this context they are the same.
As I said in Committee and have subsequently reiterated in writing to your Lordships, the Bill has been carefully drafted to give effect to that political consensus around the devolution of new powers which will give Wales a substantially greater degree of autonomy in determining the shape of its future energy structure. To use a word that has been used recently, it would be paradoxical if the Government ignored that consensus and came up with a figure that was not part of it. Key to that consensus was recognition that Wales and England are, and will remain, intrinsically linked through a common electricity transmission system which depends on the inputs from a broad range of generating sources.
The Government continue to be firmly of the view that the larger the capacity of those sources, the greater their significance beyond Wales and to the United Kingdom as a whole. Consensus was reached around 350 megawatts being the appropriate watershed, and I do not believe that the landscape has changed to such a degree since then as to necessitate exploring an alternative approach. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I think, and possibly others asked whether we already have the powers if we were to subsequently seek to increase that. Yes, we have the powers, without fresh primary legislation, under, I think, the Electricity Act. It might be under a planning Act, but I can assure the noble Lord that those powers exist in relation to upping the figure. That is not to say that factors might not emerge in the future which would give us pause for thought on this front. I do not believe, however, that now is the time to alter the 350 megawatts figure, but as I have indicated, the power is there if it should be needed.
Government Amendments 117, 118 and 119 relate to generating stations and provide Welsh Ministers with greater flexibility for the future around the exercise of their new electricity generation consenting functions in Welsh waters and in relation to the amendment of existing onshore consents up to 350 megawatts under the Electricity Act 1989. They simply and sensibly provide Welsh Ministers with the ability to delegate the exercise of their new functions to a person they appoint for the purpose. This is a flexibility which the Welsh Government have asked for, and I am happy to provide it.
Government Amendments 56 and 83, and opposition Amendments 57 and 58, relate to fixed-odds betting terminals. I confess that I am not acquainted with these either, although I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, has been experiencing them in the last week or so to see how they work, in addition to Nessa’s Slots in Barry Island. In Committee last month, I committed to reflect further on the arguments in favour of devolving powers over fixed-odds betting terminals. Having done so carefully, I am pleased to bring forward Amendment 56, which will transfer the power on fixed-odds betting terminals in exactly the same way as has been done for Scotland. I am very grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lord James, indicating that the amount relates to a bank rather than a stake. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Baroness opposite and ties in with her experience on this issue.
The noble Baroness, quite fairly, raised the issue of whether, if the amount were to change in England, it would translate across to Wales. I can confirm it would. As she rightly says, this is a serious problem which has been exercising the all-party group and others. If it were to be altered in England, that would have the effect of transferring that same amount to Wales. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, as well for his contribution. I know he feels strongly about these issues and has spoken on them forcefully and persuasively in the past.
The amendments would devolve legislative and executive competence to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to regulate the number of high-stakes gaming machines authorised by new betting premises licences in Wales. It is right that they are new betting premises, as the noble Baroness confirmed. Once again, I think the Government have been given rather a raw deal here; having come up with something that has been welcomed, we have then been accused of not going as far as noble Lords thought we had gone. I thought I was absolutely clear that we have gone as far on this as we did with Scotland. I note the comments and this is a serious issue, but I hope I have given some reassurance that if there is some movement in England, that would affect the position in Wales as well.
The Silk commission made no recommendations on the devolution of betting, gaming and lotteries, but we agreed as part of the St David’s Day process to consider non-fiscal recommendations by the Smith commission and it was in that context that we decided it would be appropriate to take this forward in relation to Wales. We reflected on it and mirrored the provisions in the Scotland Act 2016. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has proposed going much further than the position in Scotland in the Scotland Act but I am afraid we cannot agree to that. I take issue with her on one point on which she spoke passionately in relation not just to gaming machines but to the SNP. The Scotland Act is not an SNP Act—it is an Act of Westminster to which we all contributed. I think we can all reflect on that.
Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seeks to devolve the management functions of the Crown Estate commissioners in relation to Wales to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by them. This broadly reflects a provision in the Scotland Act 2016 that devolves management functions of the Crown Estate commissioners in relation to Scotland to the Scottish Ministers or a person nominated by those Ministers. The devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland was recommended by cross-party consensus in the Smith commission report. It was not part of the Silk recommendations and I am not aware that such a consensus exists in respect of Wales.
The Crown Estate works closely with devolved services in Wales; for example, it has agreed memorandums of understanding with the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales. I believe the Crown Estate commissioners are doing an excellent job. Last year the Crown Estate recorded a record profit of £304 million, which was returned to the Exchequer. This is not revenue retained by the Crown. The revenue from the Crown Estate is used to fund public services across the UK, including in Wales. This means that Wales is already directly benefiting from the management of Crown assets by the Crown Estate. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Before the Minister sits down, I should like to be clear on this point. The suggestion is that there will be no possibility for the Welsh Government to look at fixed-odds betting terminals that currently exist, despite there being this incredible social problem in Wales. If the UK Government will not allow the Welsh Government to deal with this, do they have any intention of bringing forward something that would address this issue, which is devastating communities not just in Wales but across the UK?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I acknowledge that this is a serious issue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for exaggerating my powers in relation to the Government as a whole regarding what legislation is forthcoming. I will have to write to her on that, but I acknowledge that it is a problem and I have given her an indication that if we deal with it in Westminster, of course any consequent changes would apply in Wales as well.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I have noted the replies given to the various subjects that have arisen. I still feel very strongly that some of the powers that Scotland has regarding the Crown Estate are powers that we should have as well, but clearly we are not going to make much progress on that today. I also suspect that we will come back to the diverse matters that we have discussed, including the gambling questions and possible legislation. On the basis of the debate, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) in the definition of “statutory provision”, after “Scottish Parliament” insert “and an Act of the Assembly”;”
“Water and sewerage
(1) In Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (substituted by this Act), in section C15 (water and sewerage)—(a) omit paragraph 90;(b) in paragraph 91 omit “and regulation”;(c) omit the two exceptions (and the heading “Exceptions”);(d) omit the definitions of “supply system of a water undertaker” and “sewerage system of a sewerage undertaker”.(2) In section 192B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (annual and other reports)—(a) in subsection (1), after “the Secretary of State” insert “and the Welsh Ministers”;(b) after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The Welsh Ministers shall—(a) lay a copy of each annual report before the Assembly; and(b) arrange for the report to be published in such manner as they consider appropriate.”;(c) in subsection (7) omit “the Assembly,”.”
“Modification of water-related functions
In section 58 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—(a) make provision modifying (by reference to geographical extent or otherwise) a previously conferred or transferred water-related function;(b) provide for such a function to be exercisable—(i) concurrently or jointly with a Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers, or(ii) only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, a Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers.(2B) In subsection (2A)—“previously conferred or transferred function” means a function exercisable by— (a) the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General,(b) a Minister of the Crown, or(c) any authority or other body,by virtue of provision contained in or made under this Act or any other enactment;“water-related function” means a function exercisable in relation to water supply, water quality, water resources management, control of pollution of water resources, sewerage, rivers and other watercourses, land drainage, flood risk management or coastal protection.””
“Water protocol
(1) The Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State may make an agreement (the “water protocol”) for the purpose of ensuring that—(a) actions or inaction of the Welsh Ministers, or public bodies exercising functions in Wales, do not have a serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England, and(b) actions or inaction of the Secretary of State, or public bodies exercising functions in England, do not have a serious adverse impact on water resources in Wales, water supply in Wales or the quality of water in Wales.(2) The water protocol must—(a) provide for a procedure for resolving matters of disagreement between the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State;(b) make provision about whether, or to what extent, functions relating to such matters may be exercised pending the outcome of the procedure.(3) The water protocol may be revised by agreement of the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State.(4) The water protocol, and any revised protocol, must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.(5) The Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State must exercise their functions in accordance with the provisions of the water protocol, unless it is revoked by agreement of the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State.”
“Reciprocal cross-border duties in relation to water
(1) In exercising functions relating to water resources, water supply or water quality—(a) the Welsh Ministers must have regard to the interests of consumers in England;(b) the Secretary of State must have regard to the interests of consumers in Wales.(2) In subsection (1) “the interests of consumers” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991.”
“Repeal of intervention powers relating to water
(1) In the Government of Wales Act 2006—(a) in section 114 (power to intervene in certain cases) omit paragraph (b) of subsection (1);(b) omit section 152 (intervention in case of functions relating to water).(2) Regulations under section 62 bringing this section into force may not be made until an agreement under section (Water protocol) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.”
“Transfer of functions in relation to fishing vessels
(1) The functions to which this section applies, so far as exercisable in relation to Welsh fishing boats beyond the seaward limits of the Welsh zone, are transferred to the Welsh Ministers.(2) This section applies to —(a) functions of a Minister of the Crown or the Marine Management Organisation under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967,(b) functions of a Minister of the Crown under the Sea Fisheries Act 1968,(c) functions of a Minister of the Crown under Parts 2 to 4 of the Fisheries Act 1981, and(d) functions of a Minister of the Crown or the Marine Management Organisation under the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992.(3) But this section does not apply to—(a) functions conferred on the Board of Trade by section 8 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967;(b) functions listed in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (inserted by this Act) (functions concurrently exercisable with the Welsh Ministers).(4) In this section—“Welsh fishing boat” means a fishing vessel which is registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and whose entry in the register specifies a port in Wales as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging; “Welsh zone” has the meaning given in section 158 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
“Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(1) In section 1 of the Coastguard Act 1925 (transfer of the coastguard to the Board of Trade), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers about the strategic priorities of the Secretary of State in exercising functions under subsection (1) in relation to activities of Her Majesty’s Coastguard in Wales.(6) In subsection (5) “Wales” has the same meaning as in the Government of Wales Act 2006.”(2) In section 292 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (general functions of the Secretary of State), after subsection (4) insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers about the strategic priorities of the Secretary of State in exercising functions under subsection (1) in relation to the safety standards of ships in Wales and protecting the health and safety of persons on them.(6) In subsection (5) “Wales” has the same meaning as in the Government of Wales Act 2006.””
“Gaming machines on licensed betting premises
(1) In section 172 of the Gambling Act 2005 (gaming machines), in subsection (12) (definition of “appropriate Minister”), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) the Welsh Ministers, so far as, in the case of a betting premises licence in respect of premises in Wales and not in respect of a track, the order varies—(i) the number of gaming machines authorised for which the maximum charge for use is more than £10, or(ii) whether such machines are authorised;”.(2) In section 355 of that Act (regulations, orders and rules)—(a) in subsection (1), after “the Secretary of State” insert “, the Welsh Ministers”;(b) in subsection (3), after “the Secretary of State” insert “or the Welsh Ministers”;(c) after subsection (8) insert—“(8A) An order of the Welsh Ministers under section 172 shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”(3) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a betting premises licence issued before this section comes into force.”
Surrogacy
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to update the law on surrogacy.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, for 30 years this Parliament has shown the world how to legislate and regulate matters regarding human fertilisation and embryology. This House remains indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for her landmark report of 1978, which set out with such clarity the enduring ethical basis upon which parliamentarians, the judiciary, scientists and academics still judge the permissibility and advisability of successive scientific and medical innovations in the treatment of infertility.
The legislation that was drawn up three decades ago was designed with one overarching aim: to prevent the development of commercial surrogacy in the UK. In that respect, it has been successful. The authors of the Warnock report hoped in the 1980s that a restrictive legal climate in the UK would make surrogacy “wither on the vine”. It did not, but it has restricted the development of ethical, altruistic surrogacy. That is what I wish to talk about today.
In the last 30 years there has been considerable change in societal understanding of the composition of families. Parliament has, thoughtfully and rightly, updated the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, most notably in 2008, to include same-sex parental couples and to regulate new developments in scientific knowledge and medical practice—for example, the banning of sex selection of embryos. However, one element of the legislation was founded on flawed assumptions from the start, the element that dealt with surrogacy. Thirty years on, it is referred to by academic researchers as “the fertility treatment that time forgot” and the law that relates to it as “thoroughly confused”. It should be changed.
The people who say so are judges in the Family Division who repeatedly state in their judgments that they are forced to make rulings that are not in the best interests of the children; intended parents, the people who at every stage intend to give lifelong care to the children; and surrogates. Here it is necessary to address a fundamental confusion that stems from terminology.
Earlier this year, I was privileged to listen to some young women who have been and are surrogates. They are absolutely clear that they are surrogates: they are never surrogate mothers; they are not the mothers of the children. In reality, the protection that the law gives to birth mothers is almost never wanted by surrogates, and it is not in the best interests of newborn children, whose intended parents are labelled as legal strangers, unable to make medical decisions at the early time of a child’s life, close to birth.
Leading researchers include Professor Margaret Brazier from the University of Manchester Law School, who chaired the review of surrogacy arrangements between 1996 and 1998, and others whom noble Lords will know, such as Professor Susan Golombok, Professor of Family Research at Cambridge, and Dr Kirsty Horsey, senior lecturer at Kent School, who has researched surrogacy for 18 years.
In May 2016, on “Woman’s Hour”, Baroness Warnock herself admitted that, back in the 1980s, she did not fully understand the motivation of surrogates and that now, as in the intervening years it has proved possible to encourage non-commercial surrogacy, she believes that the law should be changed.
Surrogacy is a subject that suffers greatly from sensationalist journalism and broadcasting. We are very fortunate, therefore, to have the research published by organisations such as Surrogacy UK, which has had a working group on surrogacy law reform. Those researchers admit that, while existing data on surrogacy are inadequate, in so far as it is possible to gather information from passport applications and applications for parental orders, the number of surrogacy arrangements is small but growing. In 2007, fewer than 50 parental orders were granted. In 2011, the number was 149, and of those approximately a quarter took place overseas. It is therefore safe to assume, in a way that the Daily Mail does not, that the majority of surrogacy arrangements are domestic.
The research also showed that only 15% of intended parents were gay male couples. Many intended parents are women who have survived cancer treatment. Happily, they are alive; but unhappily, they either cannot conceive or cannot carry a pregnancy to term, which is what they would wish. The majority of surrogates had been introduced to the intended parents through a surrogacy agency or support group; others were friends or family—as in a case recently in the news. None met through a commercial agency.
Of those who have given birth, 95% remain in contact with the children and the intended parents, which would suggest an openness and an ongoing affection in the relationship. The majority—just under 95%—of surrogates received less than £15,000 compensation. At first glance, that might sound like a significant payment, but when one stops to consider what it may cover—loss of earnings, because some employers do not give maternity pay to surrogates, although the law was recently changed to allow them to do so; rent or mortgage payments; income for the surrogate’s existing children, which many of them have; and travel costs—it soon becomes obvious that those payments rarely cover more than expenses, and they are closely monitored by the courts. Surrogacy UK uses a surrogacy calculator to help surrogate and intended parents to estimate the degree of the likely costs, and that is how most surrogates want it. They are surrogates because they want to help people for whom pregnancy is impossible. Their motivation is much misunderstood, and they can well do without unjust accusations that money is a dominant factor in their decision-making, when for most of them it is not.
Time is short, so I will leave it to more learned noble Lords to explain how the current law on parental orders causes problems not just for families but for the judiciary.
The number of people involved in surrogacy in the UK is small. A few, non-commercial organisations are developing surrogacy. For example, Surrogacy UK runs a Friendship First programme in which potential surrogates and intended parents can meet and, free from pressure, work out whether they could have a successful, enduring relationship—a relationship in which there is openness, transparency and pride for the children, the intended parents and the surrogates.
I suggest to the Minister that the rules on surrogacy-related advertising and its criminalisation could and should be reviewed, but only for not-for-profit organisations. Only charities or social enterprises registered as community interest companies should be allowed to advertise, and they should be required to include evidence of their legal status on all advertising. Nobody who is campaigning for a change in the law today wants the development of commercial surrogacy; all they want is to enable more people who freely choose to do so to be involved in surrogacy.
Noble Lords will be aware of a case that came before the courts recently in which a single person who had entered into a surrogacy arrangement abroad could not be considered the legal parent of a child in this country. That law will have to be reviewed because of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act. I suggest to the Minister that challenges such as that will become more frequent. We could amend this law in a piecemeal fashion, but we really ought to take the opportunity to legislate for surrogacy on an entirely different basis: not as a transaction but as a relationship between surrogates and intended parents.
I know that the noble Baroness has been dropped in to cover at short notice, and I wish her well with that, but I want to ask her some questions. She may choose to write to me; I will understand. Will the Government encourage the Law Commission, whose consultation on this closed on 31 October, to include a review of surrogacy legislation in its next programme of work? Will they commit to review parental orders, including parental orders in cases in which neither partner has been able to use their own gametes—the so-called double donation orders? Will they agree that parental order and surrogacy birth data should be centrally and transparently collected and published annually, and that IVF surrogacy cycles and birth should be accurately recorded by fertility clinics and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?
We have shown the world that, in this field of assisted reproduction, it is possible to make laws that reflect the realities of modern life while protecting the best interests of children. Surrogacy is, and will remain, a matter of intense importance to a very few people, many of whom are often misunderstood. I submit that this is an area in which there will never be a widespread, popular clamour for change in the law. It is a matter which needs detailed consideration. It is one in which Members of your Lordships’ House, even those who disagree in principle, should be involved in lengthy debate. Above all, it needs the Government to put their shoulder behind law reform which, in the interests of children, is now urgent.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for initiating this debate, and I endorse everything that she said. She referred to Baroness Warnock’s recent acceptance that the law needed change and to a report published in 2015 by a working group led by Surrogacy UK which concluded that existing legislation was,
“out of date and in dire need of reform”.
The report recommended a complete overhaul of the law, introducing pre-birth parental orders. It is on the question of parental orders that I wish to focus my remarks.
I do so on the basis of a particular case where judgment was handed down on 25 October of this year under the name “Re AB (Surrogacy: Consent) [2016] EWHC 2643 (Fam)”. The case arose out of a consensual, altruistic surrogacy arrangement. Embryos were created, using the genetic material of both biological parents, and twins were born in 2015. The embryos were transferred to the surrogate, who carried the twins to birth. The children have since had no contact with the surrogate mother and her husband, who have made it clear that they seek to have no involvement in the children’s lives.
It was agreed at a hearing involving all parties that the court should make a child arrangements order providing for the children to live with their biological parents. This gave them parental responsibility, and the orders made prevented the surrogate mother and her husband being able to exercise any parental responsibility in relation to the children. Except in one respect, the relevant criteria for the making of a parental order under Section 54 of the 2008 Act were met; that was in relation to the respondent’s consent. Section 54(6) provides that the court must be satisfied that the respondents have,
“freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order”.
Why did the surrogate mother and her husband refuse consent? Apparently, they did so because of a feeling of injustice about the process rather than being motivated in any way by the children’s best interests. Noble Lords may have seen the article by Alice Thomson today on page 28 of the Times, which goes into more detail about the facts of that case.
The lack of consent meant that the application for a parental order came to a juddering halt, which of course caused great distress to the biological parents. The children were then left—and are left—in a legal limbo which, contrary to what was agreed by the parties at the time of the arrangement, meant that the surrogate mother and her husband would remain the legal parents even though they were not biologically related to them and they expressly wished to play no part in the children’s lives.
The court acknowledged the “very unusual circumstances” of the case and said that it was prepared to accede to the request for the applications for a parental order to be adjourned generally, with liberty to restore. The problem is that a surrogate, as here, and her husband can refuse consent to orders of this sort for any reason or no reason at all. Effectively, the surrogate and her husband—who has no connection at all with the children—have a complete veto over the process. In this case, for nearly a year Cafcass and the court made extensive efforts to persuade the surrogate to “see sense”, put the interests of the children first and sign the papers, but those efforts came to nothing.
The law needs changing in this regard. The only circumstances in which a court can currently dispense with the consent of the surrogate and her husband is if they “cannot be found” or are “incapable of giving agreement”. I understand why those provisions were brought in: to cater for the situation where the surrogate might change her mind during the pregnancy, bond with the baby and want to keep it. In cases like the one that I have described, it is open to the biological parents to adopt their own children. Indeed, that may well prove to be the only option. It is something of an anomaly that, in adoption proceedings, the court would have the power to dispense with the consent of the surrogate and her husband and would be inclined to exercise that power if consent was not forthcoming.
If pre-birth parental orders are introduced, that will certainly assist, although it is understood that there will have to be some form of escape clause to deal with the problems of a surrogate changing her mind during the pregnancy. But where the issue arises post-birth, there will still need to be a satisfactory system to deal with parental orders. That could take the form of a welfare provision in relation to the child such as exists in adoption, which would make the welfare of the children paramount. Another possibility is that legislation could be amended to enable the court to dispense with the surrogate’s consent where consent was withheld unreasonably, or where the surrogate is not seeking to care for the child. Those two criteria are likely to overlap.
The situation is serious. The Law Commission is considering it. The Government should take notice of those concerns and take an early opportunity to legislate to deal with these serious lacunae.
Viscount Craigavon (CB)
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for initiating this debate and taking the lead on this subject as she has done. As she said, the law relating to surrogacy is seriously out of date. My main message this evening is that the law needs urgent updating, and that we should very much hope that the Law Commission would be able to include this task in one of its current projects. Despite the deadline for submissions officially having closed at the end of October, I learned in its acknowledgement of my submission that it would nevertheless be able to monitor this debate.
I shall give some brief examples of things going wrong at the moment. We have stories, some documented in newspapers, of newborn babies being handed over in car parks. We have the increased use of social media and self-help leading to what might be called underground transactions, sometimes in closed online groups. We have the courts and judges having to—rightly—bend the law laid down in 1985, and now out of date, to allow deadlines, time limits and even expense limits to be breached, for the very good reason of putting the best interests of the child first. That might be good British pragmatism, but it is not normally how we think of our law working and it adds uncertainty for following future cases. We should not rely on the law to be reformed only in response to outrage at a certain type of train-crash situation or worse. Having mentioned all that, I should say that the present system can work satisfactorily and happily for many people, but it is the increasing number of bad experiences, especially for those driven abroad by uncertainties, that need to be addressed.
I want now to mention two recent, largely academic milestones by those who have wanted to bring together the voices and opinions in this field, to assist serious reform taking place on the basis of more accurate information and data. First, in November 2015 an academic working group produced the excellent publication Surrogacy in the UK: Myth Busting and Reform, which is contained in full in the very useful Lords Library briefing for this debate and is available online. To give some credit, I say that the working group was led by the lead writer, Dr Kirsty Horsey, an academic lawyer at Kent Law School at the University of Kent, with strong support from trustees of Surrogacy UK, which is a not-for-profit agency and provider of information and support, as well as Sarah Norcross, the director of the Progress Educational Trust. For those who might wonder, that organisation is my personal link to this subject and past connection to related fields, going back to its foundation at the time of the HFE Bills in this House in the 1990s. It is good to see listening to this debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who took some of those Bills through this House. I know that he is interested in how the law will progress.
The report to which I referred supported the existing altruistic, compensatory model for surrogacy. One of its major recommendations was that much of the legal work that now takes considerable time after birth could be done before birth, so that the intended parents could register the birth and assume legal responsibility right from the start. Some of the existing legal time limits, already being breached, could be relaxed. The systematic collecting of information and data—currently lacking—would provide the basis for sound future decisions.
I come to the second recent milestone. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned, in May this year the aforementioned team convened an all-day conference in London, at which both she and I were present. It was a chance for all parts of this interest group to meet, debate and interact, as well as to hear from the varied experience of some surrogate mothers and to some extent, so far as possible, to arrive at a consensus for changing and updating the law. Again the consensus was in support of the present altruistic, compensatory model, but there was discussion about the extent of reasonable expenses, currently allowed under the law. Also, there was wide consensus that legal parentage should be granted to the intended parents before birth. As my time in this debate is a bit short, I shall just refer noble Lords to the report of the proceedings of that conference, which will be published by the end of this year in a special edition of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.
I want to mention one of my most remarkable Cross-Bench colleagues, who is listening next to me, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who has had her own recent known experience of surrogacy. She has asked me to say that she is happy to lend her full support to a reference to the Law Commission—a powerful endorsement.
As I have been saying, we hope that the Law Commission can look favourably on this subject as one of its projects. Given the timescale before anything might be turned into legislation, I hope that the Department of Health can produce, and keep up to date, guidelines for best practice in this field both for the medical profession and clinics and, quite separately, for the lay public wanting to know what their options are. Could the Minister give a commitment and timescale to that, and that the guidelines would be updated?
Finally and very briefly, I say that it would be helpful if the Minister could deal with one outstanding legal matter, which has already been referred to—the declaration of incompatibility in the High Court Family Division in May. Can the Government say how and how soon they will rectify what they are required to do under that judgment?
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to the timely debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Not being a lawyer, I want to focus on the particular aspect of public perception of surrogacy and the law surrounding donation.
My parents had a great friend who was a doctor. He was a huge inspiration to me as a child and young man. Patrick Trevor-Roper, brother of the historian, Hugh, was an eye surgeon who helped to pioneer cornea grafting. He went round Africa restoring sight to thousands by removing cataracts. When I expressed my interest in what he did, he immediately invited me to watch him operating at the Westminster Hospital. I realise that it is not a prospect that might appeal to many noble Lords, but I was mesmerised. As he worked, I realised that we were listening to my father’s guitar sonatina, played by Julian Bream.
Pat was a maverick—bohemian, unorthodox. One patient arrived in his consulting room in Regent’s Park to find him peeing in the sink. These eccentricities seemed only, by and large, to endear him to his patients. He infuriated the art world with his extraordinary book, The World Through Blunted Sight, by suggesting that El Greco’s willowy figures were the result of astigmatism. In 1955, long before it was fashionable or wise to do so, he became one of the first gay rights activists, giving evidence to the Wolfenden committee.
The relevance of all that to the important debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is that Pat taught me that, if one human being can make another whole by the gift of donation—of surrogacy—that was a completely normal and utterly joyous thing to do. He felt, 40 years ago, that too much taboo and squeamishness surrounded these most natural acts of procreation, acts which might assist intending parents who were often going through agonies of frustration as they attempted to have children.
As Surrogacy UK urges in its 2015 report we must guard the principle of altruistic surrogacy in the UK, surrogacy, as we have already heard, as a relationship not a transaction. We must learn to be less suspicious. Just as we need corneas, kidneys and hearts, so too do we need gifts from the living—sperm, for example. Here I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister to take back to her department. The law, as it currently stands, is careful to say that sperm donors are protected from pursuit by, for example, the Child Support Agency, only if they go through a licensed clinic. Clearly, you cannot have a loophole that would allow fathers to avoid their fiscal responsibilities—I completely accept that. But there are scenarios in which friends of the family, for instance, are keen to help, and where altruism reigns. I have seen this in heterosexual and gay communities, and it is profoundly touching. Furthermore, the law is discriminatory in that it favours better-off women who can afford to use expensive clinics but denies many poor ones access to donation. Wealth apart, should there not anyway be a provision for altruistic donation, one that could attract legal security and therefore attract more men to donate? It should surely be possible for a donor and a recipient to enter into a legally binding agreement without the use of an expensive clinic.
I have seen the misery and heartbreak of childlessness. When I did, I vowed to do anything I could to help—and I can tell noble Lords that there are few things in this world as rewarding as seeing, whether through surrogacy or donation, the successful outcome of this generosity from one human being to another. Are there risks? Yes, of course there are, as in everything else that we do, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—including having children in the usual way. The imperative to procreate, next to birth and death, is one of the great evolutionary acts of being human—it should belong to all of us.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Despite more than 50 years in law, I can claim no particular experience or expertise in this subject, although I have boned up on a number of recent cases. I have chosen to speak in this debate not to canvass any particular view as to how precisely to change and develop our existing inadequate surrogacy law, but rather to urge that this is, par excellence, a topic self-contained and policy-laden as it is, that cries out for attention by the Law Commission for inclusion in its imminent next programme of law reform. As the noble Viscount said, its consultation period on what projects to take ended on 31 October, but I have no doubt at all that it will take full account of what is said in this debate for which, alas, no earlier date was available. I have the very highest regard for the Law Commission—its chairman, commissioners, support staff and processes. In many debates in this House, we express regret about the lack of pre-legislative consultation on the various Bills before us, but such consultation is at the very heart of the Law Commission’s processes and, if ever it was desirable, surely it is so here, with regard to reshaping—as we now should—our obviously outdated surrogacy law.
In the 30-odd years since the Warnock committee report and the first surrogacy legislation in 1985, there has been a huge increase in the use of surrogacy to satisfy aspiring parents’ understandable and estimable craving for a full family life. This is due variously, no doubt, to advances in genetics; the expansion of social media, which so greatly facilitate surrogacy arrangements, here in the UK and abroad; and perhaps, also, to the widening recognition of differing types of secure family unit. All too plainly, the law has struggled to keep up with those developments. As others have already said, some of its basic architecture has been causing problems, most notably perhaps in the provision for parental orders to be made only after birth. This results in the surrogate mother and her spouse being at birth the legal parent, the biological parents being wholly dependent on the surrogate’s consent for an order, and the child in the meantime being in legal limbo. That particular aspect of the law was admirably brought to light in the piece mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in today’s Times by Alice Thomson, plainly based on the very case that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, cited and has now described—as I was proposing to do but now need not do.
But this is far from the only problem that arises in this ever-expanding, sensitive and profoundly important area of our law. As has rightly been said, parental orders are transformational; they go to the very identity of the child as a human being. Another problem encountered was the inability of the court to make a parental order in favour of a single father, as opposed to a recognised couple, declared by Sir James Munby in the case of Z this May to be incompatible with the father’s and child’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights—the one mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. It may well be, and the Minister may inform us about this, that that particular problem will be solved by way of a ministerial order under Section 10(2) of the Human Rights Act. But even if it is, surrogacy law as a whole would to my mind be best reviewed and brought up to date in the light of a Law Commission report. As Alice Thomson said at the end of her article today, it is true that the Law Commission could take years, but I question whether the problem that she and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, have fully described can be regarded as,
“a simple anomaly that could be changed right now”.
Law reform is now required but, in a controversial and difficult subject such as this, I would urge that it be done with the initial involvement and invaluable assistance of a Law Commission report.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it was not my intention to speak in this debate but since the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has not been able to come, I thought that I might take up just a little bit of the spare time. As the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, has said, it was my responsibility to introduce the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in the 1990s. It was immensely helped by the work that Mary Warnock had done before that. There was still quite a lot of debate, as those who were here will remember, about various matters, including the very contentious matter of embryo research. This particular matter was dealt with in the law in the way that it was, mainly because, at that time, the general impression was that the arrangements for transfer of sperm material should be confidential. Therefore, unless there was some clear indication, it was not clear who the child belonged to in the real sense, except that there could be certainty that the child was born of a particular person. So that was what was done at that time. In 2008, there was a relaxation of a number of these issues, but I think that it is quite clear that this kind of difficulty ought to be dealt with now or as soon as possible.
Mary Warnock’s report was, as I said, a tremendous help in getting the legislation through, and a proper investigation by the Law Commission would be extremely helpful now in getting legislation through. I agree that the Law Commission can take some time—it was my responsibility at the time that I was Lord Chancellor to be Minister for the Law Commission and we were able to get a lot of the legislation through—but the time that it would take is really a matter for the commission. I think that a fairly thorough investigation would be needed, but I do not see that a thorough investigation needs to be very long. I hope therefore that if the Law Commission is empowered to take this on by a programme which includes it, then things could proceed quite quickly. It would involve a good deal of consultation but, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said, the Law Commission really invented the system of pre-legislative consultation. Lord Scarman, the first chairman of the Law Commission, developed that in a way that Governments have taken up. So the Law Commission knows all about dealing with complicated issues such as this. I hope that it might be able to do it quickly, and I sincerely hope that the Government will think it right to refer the issue to it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Barker for raising this important topic tonight and I agree with everything she said. There are, as we have heard, many issues to untangle and I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, hope that the Law Commission will be able to consider what changes need to be made and make recommendations. I hope that the Government will then find time, during a very busy legislative programme, to take up these recommendations and make the necessary changes to bring the law up to date, which is being called for by parents and by judges.
It is desirable that every child is a wanted child, because it means that the child will be loved and that is what he or she needs, much more than a well-filled Christmas stocking. So, for the sake of the children and their new families, I hope we will hear from the Minister some willingness to put right the problems that have been outlined and which beset many couples trying to make a family through surrogacy. As we have heard from my noble friend, there are many reasons why people have to resort to surrogacy and clearly it is growing, so we must make sure that the law is brought up to date, adapts to changes in society and protects all those involved. The first principle, of course, must be the rights of the child and its health and well-being. Secondly, the rights of the surrogates and the commissioning parents must be fairly considered. Even though we have heard about some of its shortcomings, the law in the UK at least gives some sort of framework for this, but rules around the world vary. I hope the UK Government would take a lead in trying to get some comprehensive universal principles adopted, once we have our own house in order.
In preparing for this debate I read the debate in another place from 14 October 2014, and was very struck by the many practical difficulties encountered by MPs on behalf of their constituents. Even though the couples had tried to do everything correctly, they often met a brick wall. Many of the cases cited by MPs were of people who had resorted to surrogacy abroad because accessing it in the UK was too difficult or complicated, getting a passport for the child was slow or they were unsure of the law. There were lots of reasons, but brick walls were encountered. In those cases, it cannot be right that complications and delays in the administrative procedures for bringing the child home should cause a child to be without his or her parents in those first vital few months of life when bonding with the principal carer should be taking place, which is so important for their future mental health. But that is what happened in too many of those cases cited in another place.
We need a transparent structure that is as uncomplicated as possible, we need data—as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, emphasised—and we need clear advice for parents intending to set out on this route to parenthood. Of course, this often happens only when many years have been spent exploring other routes, and failing with all the pain and stress that this causes. Sometimes, parents turn to other countries because they are considered too old to adopt a child in the UK, after many cycles of IVF have failed.
I agree with many of the demands of the organisation Surrogacy UK, in particular that a parental order should be applied for prior to the birth so that the child is never left without both its parents being known or, as in some cases, left stateless. I certainly agree that there should be no commercialisation of surrogacy. This is a wonderful and generous thing that a woman can do for another or for a same-sex couple and it should not be commercialised, apart from appropriate expenses. That brings me to fears that have been expressed about exploitation of surrogate mothers in other countries. This is a very difficult issue, as many of those who offer to bear a child for others live in very poor countries. There is nothing wrong with ensuring that she and her other children, if she has any, remain healthy, well fed and without stress during the process—but how do you ensure it is limited to that? It is very difficult. Large payments would be bound to lead to women who were not suitable seeking to be surrogates. This would be contrary to the principle that the mother must be protected as well as the child. We need some international standards to prevent that.
Another recommendation is for a clear agreement between the commissioning parents and the surrogate. There are so many things that may need to be decided and things that can go wrong; these need to be laid on the line right from the start. I certainly think that “friends first” is a very good idea.
From the health point of view, it is of course highly desirable that infertile couples get as much medical help as possible and in a timely way, so that surrogacy is not necessary. If that were the case, would-be parents may not have to take that route. Also, if UK surrogacy law were more in line with what is needed in today’s society, people would not need to go abroad. So I ask the Minister to promise us today that the Government will support the Law Commission review and act on its recommendations if it happens.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I endorse her praise for Baroness Warnock’s outstanding work, which led to the legislation which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, took through the House. I very much hope that he will speak more often in the gap in future because his contributions in this area are always so welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke compassionately and persuasively in favour of updating the law to deal with some of the problems she identified. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, illuminated the problems arising from a case where the children were left in limbo. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, this, of course, is not the only problem. The report of Surrogacy UK, which was endorsed by Baroness Warnock, sets out very clearly some of the challenges that we face with the current law. The report concludes that,
“the time is ripe to embark upon reform of surrogacy law”,
and makes it clear that the current law is,
“out of date and in dire need of reform”.
I will refer to three areas that the report identifies. First, it states:
“Our recommendations for reform centre on the welfare of surrogate-born children and on realigning the law with their best interests”.
Secondly, it states that,
“the principle of altruistic surrogacy in the UK”,
must be guarded. Thirdly, it states:
“The law must recognise the correct people as parents of children born through surrogacy”.
I also draw the House’s attention to the three recommendations the report makes to the Government. First, it states:
“The Department of Health … should … publish a ‘legal pathway’ document for intended parents and surrogates”.
That is a very interesting and important recommendation. Secondly, the report states:
“The Department of Health should produce guidance for professionals in the field”.
Thirdly, the report states:
“Surrogacy should be included in schools’ sex and relationships education”.
Perhaps the Minister, in responding, will say whether the Government have considered those three specific recommendations and are prepared to take them forward.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Brown, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, emphasised their desire for the Law Commission to undertake a review. It has undertaken a consultation and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, said that it is monitoring this debate. We appeal to the Government to refer this matter to the Law Commission.
If the Law Commission option is not taken forward, will the Government then be prepared to undertake their own review of the law? It is clear that, one way or another, we need this issue taken forward. The work needs to be done carefully but at a pace. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response tonight and I look forward to her comments.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important subject for debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this highly sensitive, contentious and complex issue.
There is no doubt that surrogacy has an important role to play in our society, helping to create much-wanted families where that might otherwise not be possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, it enables relatives and friends to provide a truly altruistic gift to women who are not able to have a child themselves, and helps same-sex couples to have their own genetically-related children—and, of course, the UK Government recognise the value of this.
The legislation ensures that the woman who gives birth—the surrogate—is regarded as the child’s mother until legal parenthood is transferred, and that surrogacy arrangements are not legally enforceable. This is to avoid the situation of a newly-born child being taken away from its birth mother against her wishes.
Legislation sets out the criteria for a parental order to be awarded to transfer legal parenthood from the surrogate to the intended parents. These include: the requirement that genetic material of at least one of the intended parents is used to create the child; that the surrogate should be paid only for reasonable expenses; and that there is a “cooling off” period of six weeks after the birth before an application for a parental order can be made. It also provides for a six-month window after the birth for applications to be made.
These are some of the key provisions and principles that are currently in effect. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned, we all recognise that there are well-founded concerns about the struggle that surrogacy policy and legislation are facing to keep pace with 21st-century attitudes and lifestyles. This legislation is based largely on thinking and debate from the 1980s. We recognise that family structures are now much more diverse than when the policy and legislation were originally developed. The ability of intending parents to go outside the UK for surrogacy and return with a child is a particularly challenging situation.
The courts have increasingly had to address these issues when dealing with surrogacy cases and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned, have expressed concerns about the legislation when doing so. Most recently, the High Court delivered a judgment in May that the legislative provision which allows couples, but not single people, to obtain parental orders is incompatible with human rights—a judgment which the Government have accepted.
Noble Lords will be aware of Surrogacy UK’s 2015 report, Myth Busting and Reform. This report reflects the views of some people who have undertaken surrogacy arrangements, either as intended parents, surrogates or supporting family members. The Government have welcomed the report’s continuing commitment to the altruistic principles of surrogacy and the important message about applying for parental orders to secure legal parenthood. It is also helpful that the report provides reassurance that the tendency towards seeking international surrogacy arrangements, although undoubtedly a concern and a challenge, is not as widespread as some have sought to portray. The Government have taken note of the changes to surrogacy legislation and policy that the report recommends.
It is worth noting that other parliamentary colleagues have exchanged correspondence with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service— Cafcass—about the Surrogacy UK report. Cafcass has made a point of saying that it disagrees with the report recommendation for the introduction of pre-birth contracts to transfer legal parenthood from the surrogate mother immediately upon the birth of the child. That is an indication of the difficult and contentious ethical issues that potential review or reform of surrogacy raises.
I have listened with great interest to the points made in this debate. For some time, the Government have considered potential positive action that could be taken on surrogacy, and many of the points made tonight are therefore familiar through that consideration. Three key strands of government activity are being developed, which I will draw to the attention of the House.
First, the Department of Health intends to produce guidance on surrogacy arrangements in the UK, including best practice and clarification about the process and the legislation. This will provide authoritative information for people who are considering surrogacy. It will reflect the ground rules of the current arrangements in the UK and emphasise the benefits of undertaking surrogacy in UK-licensed clinics rather than going abroad. It will make clear the importance of seeking and obtaining a parental order to confer legal parenthood.
A project group has therefore been established to produce the guidance in close collaboration with key surrogacy organisations and other stakeholders, taking account of their input about the particular issues on which clarity and information is most needed. The aim of the project is to produce guidance on surrogacy for professionals, surrogates and intended parents to improve experiences under the current system. A number of meetings have taken place already, and good progress is being made. The intention is to complete the project and disseminate the guidance after Easter 2017.
Secondly, the Government recognise that surrogacy policy and legislation have not been significantly addressed by respective Administrations since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act was introduced in 1985. We have heard and taken account of the arguments for the need for a review. As a result—in answer to the question asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Walmsley—the Government informed the Law Commission that they fully support the commission’s proposal to include a review of surrogacy in its work programme from 2017.
The Law Commission’s consultation on its work programme concluded on 31 October and referred specifically to the Government’s support for the inclusion of a review of surrogacy. The Government have strongly encouraged all those with an interest in or views about surrogacy to respond directly to the commission, supporting the inclusion of surrogacy and setting out the particular aspects, views and issues concerning surrogacy that they consider important and wish to see covered by the review.
As I have already indicated, there are differences in opinion across the surrogacy sector about the changes that could or should be made, including some of the recommendations in Surrogacy UK’s report. It is important that we do not prejudge the positions. Having encouraged all interested parties to make their points to the Law Commission as part of the consultation process, it is now for the commission to assess the totality of views expressed in coming to a conclusion about any proposed final work programme.
The third strand of activity concerns the Government’s response to the recent High Court judgment that declared that a provision in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008—which enables couples but not single people to obtain a parental order following surrogacy—is incompatible with the Human Rights Act. We will, therefore, update the legislation on parental orders to ensure that it is compatible with the court judgment. I can confirm that the Government will introduce a remedial order to achieve this, so that single people can apply for parental orders on the same basis as couples. The remedial order will be subject to consultation and will include transitional arrangements, which would put all single people on the same footing and allow a reasonable time period to apply. The House will recognise that there are complexities and a considerable number of consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation, so our current plan is that the remedial order will be introduced to Parliament in early 2017. This strand of work will be undertaken separately to the Law Commission’s considerations of a potential wider review of surrogacy.
I am sorry that I galloped through that, but I always feel that the 12 minutes will be up so soon that I will not have time to go through everything. That is why it sounded like a terrible gallop. However, I hope that noble Lords were able to understand the points I made rather than feeling that I read my speech parrot-fashion, which I did not want to do.
I will answer some of the questions that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned that surrogacy should be looked at as a whole, to include all aspects of parental orders. We absolutely agree with this, and I will certainly go back to the department with consideration about improved information collection.
My noble friend Lord Faulks mentioned the case reported in today’s Times. This is an unfortunate case, but thankfully very rare. Nevertheless, that does not help the parents who are trying to deal with it at the moment. Consent is a very important principle, which underpins all the legislation concerning assisted reproduction that Parliament has agreed. Any isolated amendment to surrogacy law, such as that relating to consent, would be controversial given the range of views held about surrogacy. Parliament would expect a thorough public consultation about any proposed changes to legislation in this area. We have given this issue consideration and our preference is therefore for it to be explored through the review by the Law Commission as part of the broad policy area.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, mentioned maternity units that ask couples to exchange their babies in the car park. The Government absolutely do not support the practice of surrogate families being forced to move off NHS premises after the birth of children. Altruistic surrogacy is an alternative approach to family-building, not a form of child trafficking. The Department of Health has recently established a project group with surrogacy stakeholders to develop best-practice guidance on surrogacy for those considering entering into such arrangements and for care professionals to increase awareness and understanding of the key issues and improve the experience of those undertaking surrogacy arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Patrick Trevor-Roper. That was rather extraordinary as I did my eye surgery nursing under him and he became a huge friend of mine—partly because the only bit of nursing I could not bear was eyes. Every time I went into surgery, he told me what he was doing and I watched with my eyes shut, which was not best practice. But he was certainly the most marvellous man and very much a mentor to me during my nursing training at Westminster Hospital.
The noble Lord asked whether sperm donation could be allowed with protections. There are no plans for this but I will look into the matter further and write to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about support for an international agreement. The UK Government are willing to consider supporting an international agreement on legal parenthood, including surrogacy, to help safeguard children who travel across international borders. UK officials are currently participating in feasibility considerations with the Hague working group. However, it is important to recognise that there may be significant difficulties in preparing such an agreement due to the evolving nature of much local legislation on surrogacy and the sensitivity with which it is regarded in many countries. It would be for individual counties to determine how such an agreement might impact on issues such as nationality. Such an agreement could also be a way of minimising the risks of child trafficking.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked three questions. I will need to get back to him on those if that is all right. I think that the answers are yes, yes and yes—but I do not want to say that if it is not correct. However, that is my belief.
I can give noble Lords a clear and unequivocal message that this Government recognise the value of surrogacy as a means of helping to create new families for a range of people who might not otherwise be able to have their own children. It is in that spirit of inclusiveness and equality that we look to the future and to surrogacy in the UK being updated for the 21st century. We very much welcome the significant steps that are now beginning to be made in that direction.
Wales Bill
Wednesday 14th December 2016
(8 years 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 77-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 155KB) - (12 Dec 2016)
21:03 - Division on Amendment 59 - Ayes: 58 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 59 disagreed.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
“Rail: franchising of passenger services
(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (England and Wales: public sector operators not to be franchisees) is amended as follows. (2) In the heading, omit “and Wales”.(3) At the end of subsection (2A) insert “or a franchise agreement in respect of services that are or include Wales-only services.”(4) After subsection (2A) insert— “(2B) For the purposes of this section a “Wales-only service” has the same meaning as in section 57 of the Railways Act 2005.”(5) This section does not have effect in relation to any invitation to tender under section 26(2) of the Railways Act 1993 issued before the day on which this section comes into force.”
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, this week, with the chaos caused on Southern rail, we have seen how poorly run railways can impact on people’s lives. I know this to be true because the shadow Chief Whip has told me to get a move on as he needs to catch a train—a Southern rail train, which is even more difficult.
One of the key ambitions of the Welsh Government is to establish and develop a dynamic economy in Wales. Central to this is the fact that we will need to ensure that it is supported by an effective integrated transport network—including, crucially, the rail network. The question we are addressing in our amendment is: who should be allowed to bid for the franchise to run the railways in Wales?
With ambitious milestones envisaged for the delivery of the public transport network in Wales, such as electrification, the introduction of the South Wales Metro and widespread structural improvements, it is important to make sure that all possibilities are open in relation to who can run our railways. That is essential for the implementation of our ambitious plans for improved passenger services across Wales. We need to ensure that the development of that franchise and the ability of anyone to bid for it are married with the economic ambitions for the area.
The current franchise saw a surge from 18 million annual passenger journeys on the network in 2003 to 29 million journeys by 2013. With the numbers forecast to grow by a further 74% by 2030, it is imperative that we plan for that growth in a more integrated and responsive way. If we leave it to the UK Government, we will be in trouble, because only about 1% of the money spent on rail infrastructure enhancements across England and Wales from 2011 to 2015 was spent on Network Rail’s routes in Wales. I repeat: 1%. And we wonder why there is disparity in the way that people respond to government in this country. That has to be addressed, and we want to address it. However, that is not what I want to talk about here. I am sorry but I needed to say that, because I am really angry about the fact that only 1% was spent in Wales. It is important that that is understood.
The Welsh Government are currently undertaking a franchise round to decide who will be responsible for running the Wales and Borders franchise, including the operator for the planned Metro. In theory, we understand that a not-for-profit organisation could have bid for this franchise round. But we would like to see the possibility in a future franchise round for the Welsh Government themselves to be able to bid for the franchise if they wish to do so. This is something that has been allowed for in Scotland and was agreed in the Smith report, but it is being denied to Wales.
Let me underline the absurdity of the situation by telling noble Lords about the current bidders for the franchise. The preferred bidders to build the South Wales Metro and run the next Wales and Borders franchise have just been announced. The choices reflect the injustice of British railway politics. Abellio is a subsidiary of a Dutch state-owned rail company; Arriva forms part of a German state-owned company, Deutsche Bahn; Keolis belongs to the French state-owned rail service, SNCF; and the only truly private bidder is MTR, a Hong Kong-based rail company. It is illogical to allow a foreign state-owned company to run a franchise in Wales while prohibiting public sector organisations from running the Welsh franchise. Wales should not be maintained as another nation’s rail colony. It is purely a matter of logic that the Welsh Government should be granted the opportunity to bid if they wish in future to run that railway network.
We understand that the next franchise will run from 2028 but we believe that this is an important matter of principle. We believe that the Government are being ideologically blinkered in their objection to the public sector in Britain being allowed to deliver rail services. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I look forward to the Minister’s response to this because he is not on a good wicket at the moment. This is not a good week to be defending privately run franchises or arguing that railways run by the private sector are automatically the solution to all our problems. I reassure the Minister that on these Benches, we are not massive fans of nationalisation either—we are fans of what works. As you study franchises across Britain and railways across Europe and the world, you will see that all sorts of configurations work in different circumstances and that similar configurations do not work in other places. There is no one solution.
I do not think it is necessarily appropriate for the Welsh Government to be trying to run a railway service. However, it is conceivable that the Welsh Government might wish, for example, to enter into a partnership with the private sector on some kind of joint venture, or to set up some sort of novel structure, of which they would be a part, perhaps on a not-for-profit basis. I remind the Minister that Transport for London is a real success story in many respects, and has a structure that quite clearly includes a government element. I also remind the Minister that when the Government were forced to take over the east coast main line from a failing private sector franchise, they did rather a good job of running the railway and saving the situation. Therefore, we support in principle the idea of giving the Welsh Government the freedom to decide what shape of franchise they want and to participate in that process if they wish to do so.
I realise that the Minister will say that there are practical difficulties because the railway runs not just in Wales but in England. If the rail franchise is run by the Welsh Government, it might be regarded as slightly irregular, I suppose, for the service in England, but no more irregular than the private sector franchise being run by the Dutch state railway company, which is what happens in England at the moment. I also realise that we are talking about a long way into the future, because the processes for the next franchise will not be prepared until 2028. For that reason, I hope the Minister will listen and think about this. There is value in playing the long game on the railways and in looking at how we can get the best investment in services in the long term. One thing that would persuade the Welsh Government to invest in railways in Wales would be to give them a little more power and control over them.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Morgan’s excellent speech, I make one brief point. The Welsh Government are not seeking to have their civil servants run the rail franchise—I do not believe anybody thinks that that would be a good idea—but to configure the right package for Wales. We can take the example of Welsh Water. To be precise on this and, I hope, not pedantic, Welsh Water is a not-for-dividend company. It is not a not-for-profit company. It has to make profits to invest. Any entity taking over the Wales rail franchise would have to do the same. But Welsh Water is run much more efficiently than privatised water companies in England because it can raise its capital at a far cheaper rate on the market than private companies—noble Lords can look at the figures—because it does not have to satisfy the shareholders’ speculative roundabouts. The amendment would give the Welsh Government the opportunity to invite bids of that kind.
Finally, if the Minister is serious about his support for devolution to Wales, why does he not respond to the Welsh Government’s specific request to have this amendment carried into statute?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment and the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Having listened to the discussions on the Bill, however, I strongly support a step-by-step approach. I can see the arguments on either side and recognise that the Silk commission recommended devolution. My recollection is that it recommended that the executive responsibility for the Wales and border passenger rail franchise be fully devolved. But it did so with a number of conditions and safeguards. The Government confirmed in the St David’s Day Command Paper that they would consider which non-fiscal parts of the Smith commission agreement might be implemented for Wales, including the commitment to amend Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 to permit public sector operators to bid for rail franchises, for which Scottish Ministers are responsible.
As I understand it, the commitments that have been made have now caused the two Governments to work together on the detailed arrangements for the next franchise, including how cross-border routes could be procured and managed and signalling the likelihood that services primarily serving English markets would be transferred to other franchises for which the Secretary of State is responsible, all of which is welcome. I suppose my main question for the Minister is: can he please give us an update on exactly where we are because I would not want us to accept the amendment if it flies in the face of the careful consideration between the two Governments of how this could all be brought into effect in time for the next franchise, but in particular during the course of next year?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the build-up from the Benches opposite. I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the railways. Perhaps I may say first, although I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, referred to it, that although Amendment 91 is in this group, I would like to return to it on the second day of Report, in the new year. I see that the noble Baroness is content with that.
I turn to Amendment 59 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. She is seeking to press the Government to a decision on a matter that we committed to consider in the St David’s Day Command Paper, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has just indicated. That matter is whether to legislate for Wales in a similar manner to the provision in the Scotland Act 2016 regarding the powers of Scottish Ministers as committed to in the Smith commission agreement to enable Welsh Ministers to invite UK public sector operators to bid for rail franchises for which they are the responsible franchising authority. Let me deal first with the point about not-for-profit and not-for-dividend organisations. They are currently able to bid and there is no proposal to alter that, so the likes of Dwr Cymru, as I indicated in Committee, would be able to bid in relation to this.
I know the Welsh Government are keen to have this power, but I have to tell noble Lords that we have no proposal in this area, particularly given that it will be 2028 before it could kick in. I think that by common agreement the current border franchise contract will be agreed in 2018. We do not propose to permit public sector bidders in the interim because we do not see any urgency about this. On that basis, I cannot give the reassurance that is sought.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response. I do not understand why we cannot have the same rights as Scotland for the public sector to be able to bid for the franchise. We are not asking to be given it; we are asking for the right to submit a proposal, which, as the noble Lord suggested, is allowed in the Smith commission agreement. It is a double standard to allow German, Dutch and French state-owned companies to bid for the franchise but not Welsh state-owned companies. The noble Lord will understand that when talking about railways you need a long-term approach. That is why we do not think it is premature to be pushing this. I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Judge
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I shall not speak to Amendments 63 or 64, but I shall speak to Amendment 65. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, reminded the House, I had the privilege of being Lord Chief Justice of Wales for some time and I regard this as a constitutional question. I also recognise that at this time of the night, a speech like that of Welsh-born Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt—or before the walls of Harfleur—will not do very much for anybody, so I will confine myself to a few choice words, but maybe more than I intend.
I make this speech because this provision is simply a constitutional aberration. Here we are in the mother of Parliaments, an institution where the principles so movingly crafted by Abraham Lincoln on the blood-soaked field of Gettysburg, about government for the people by the people and of the people—democracy—is embodied. Yet we are to provide a Minister of the Crown with powers to amend, repeal, revoke and modify—perhaps I can use the word “disapply” to cover all those—any primary or secondary legislation. We do it all the time in what are called Henry VIII powers and we all let it happen. We should not, but we do—so let us face the fact that there are Henry VIII powers in this provision.
Secondary legislation can overrule primary legislation, but this is the malevolent ghost of King Henry VIII wandering through the valleys of Wales because, at least in the provision as it stands, if the primary legislation of this Parliament is to be overruled there are going to be regulations which would empower this House to overrule it. I disagree with the process but it is up to Parliament, and Parliament provides it. The necessary regulations are subject to parliamentary approval or annulment, but—this is the crucial but—the regulations that would empower the Minister to disapply legislation of the National Assembly for Wales are not subject to the equivalent control by that Assembly. We seem to have been discussing this legislation all day yet any part of it—primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever it may be—can be wiped out by a Minister without any consultation with anyone at the National Assembly for Wales. In other words, we would wipe out the enactments of a democratically elected Parliament that we call the National Assembly.
If I may say so, I find a ministerial diktat that is given such powers quite astonishing. It is astonishing that it is considered here in the mother of Parliaments. There is not a scintilla of control of the Executive envisaged in these provisions, which is why I describe them as a constitutional aberration. I am sorry to use strong language and I know I am not before Harfleur, but it is an insult to the democratic process which this Parliament created when the National Assembly for Wales was created. That is my prime concern, but I am concerned, too, about the legislation itself.
Can we just remember that this is open to question as a piece of legislation? Clause 60 as it stands is inconsistent with the spirit and arguably, I suggest, with the precise language of Clause 2. If Parliament is normally precluded—as it would be for the reasons we have discussed this afternoon—from legislating about devolved matters without the consent of the National Assembly, why on earth should a Minister or the Executive, not Parliament, be given wide-ranging powers, including powers to disapply primary legislation of the Assembly by secondary legislation without any consent, without so much as a “by your leave”? There may be political consequences, but in law that is what we are being asked to consider.
I know that the Minister, who has dealt with me with the greatest possible courtesy, will no doubt point out that that is what happens in Scotland. So it does. We should be embarrassed that we allowed it to happen. The fact that it happens in Scotland does not alter the fact that it was an aberration there and will be an aberration here. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in his excellent opening statement on Amendment 63 and the amendments grouped with it. I shall speak to my Amendments 64 and 71 and to Amendment 65, to which I added my name.
Amendment 65 may be the most effective amendment in this group. The amendments seek to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales has primacy when it comes to secondary legislation in areas of devolved competence and to removing Westminster’s powers to undermine Welsh devolution through what are known as Henry VIII powers. It is worth reading out the amendment:
“Page 49, line 7, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (2) unless the National Assembly for Wales has passed a resolution approving a draft of the regulations”’.
That seems a very reasonable thing to do. When these points were put forward in Committee, I found the Minister’s response, particularly to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to some extent disappointing and perhaps a little misleading. The Minister argued that Acts of Parliament and Acts of the Assembly should be treated equally in areas of devolved competence. The Minister characterised the argument as being about equality, although no one appeared to be using that word to describe the intentions of these amendments. It is not a matter of equality; it is about establishing the supremacy or primacy of laws created by the Assembly in Wales for Wales. The Minister argued that a number of Welsh Assembly Acts require amendments to Westminster Acts and that a statutory provision to create more accountability for secondary legislation would shift the balance too far in favour of the Assembly. However, as my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas highlighted, we are talking about two very different scenarios. The Assembly is simply amending Westminster Acts, which are the legislative framework on which Welsh law has been built for centuries. In contrast, unwanted attempts by Westminster to amend Assembly Acts are simply interventions in what should be an area of unquestionable authority for the National Assembly for Wales. It therefore seems quite a misnomer to say that any attempts to use Henry VIII powers to undermine Welsh law are a matter of equality. The issue is about ensuring that Welsh Assembly Acts have the respect and legal standing that they deserve.
I shall also briefly address a further point raised by the Minister. He argued that Clause 53 will be used to address “minor” or “consequential” issues only. It was argued that any wholesale changes to this process would create unnecessary complexities for these necessary but uncontentious pieces of secondary legislation. He will be able to see from Amendment 64 that by including the word “minor” in the appropriate line of the clause, I have addressed that issue. I hope he will acknowledge that and perhaps accept the amendment.
I understand that, as with primary legislation, AMs are afforded the right to vote on a consent Motion for any changes to Westminster orders and regulations which infringe into areas of devolved competence. This is called Standing Order 30A and is referred to by the abbreviation SICM for statutory instrument consent memorandum. However, this is only agreed to by convention, and recognised only in Assembly standing orders. It has absolutely no legal standing—even less than the somewhat pathetic standing given to the Sewel convention by including the word “normally” in the Bill.
The Assembly cannot rely on the kindness of Westminster to ensure that it can continue to exercise the powers we have fought so hard for it to have. Will the Minister therefore accept the advice of so many legal and constitutional experts and recognise that it is no longer acceptable to have these arcane and undemocratic clauses in the Bill—or, for that matter, in any Bill of this nature? A way out of this totally unnecessary mess would be to require the National Assembly’s agreement to the use of any statutory instrument by Westminster. At a stroke, that would resolve the issue. If the matters are as uncontentious as the Minister claimed them to be, there would be no difficulty in getting that Assembly agreement.
As things stand, I can well see this matter becoming a dominant one, which could well lead to the National Assembly refusing to pass a legislative consent order in relation to the Bill. If that were to happen, it would be a direct consequence of the Government refusing to apply even-handed common sense and instead running terrified of upsetting the Scots by giving Wales this additional power. We have been told time and again that just because something is appropriate for Scotland, it is not necessarily appropriate for Wales. In this instance, the boot is on the other foot, and for the sake both of the self-respect of our National Assembly and of the even-handed resolution of disputes between Westminster and Cardiff Bay, I urge the House to accept this amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, Clause 60 is an example of the encroachment of the Executive on the privileges of Parliament that has increasingly come to the forefront in the last two or three years. It is necessary to look at the provisions of that clause very carefully. In subsection (2), it says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make such consequential provision in connection with any provision of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
Parliament passes primary legislation, and a Secretary of State introduces regulations. The control that Parliament has is by way of statutory instrument—sometimes by the affirmative procedure, sometimes by the negative procedure. This is an issue that has troubled the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, for some time. Every time this provision appears, a statement is made which the Government have, in the last two or three years, ignored. Subsection (3) says that “Regulations under subsection (2)” made by the Secretary of State “may amend, repeal”—and these are the important words—
“revoke or otherwise modify … an enactment contained in primary legislation, or … an instrument made under an enactment contained in primary legislation”.
That is the Henry VIII clause which permits a Minister to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend an Act of Parliament passed by Parliament.
There are two ways of doing that, as I have already indicated: by affirmative resolution, whereby the amendment does not take place unless the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament; or by the negative procedure, whereby a draft is produced and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament. Your Lordships are familiar with the bringing forward of Motions in the House to seek to annul regulations that are subject to the negative procedure. However, this clause, at subsection (6), says:
“A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) that includes provision amending or repealing any provision of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.
That is the affirmative procedure, but the words are “amending or repealing”. It is not necessary to have an affirmative resolution if the purpose of the regulations is to revoke or otherwise modify the Act of Parliament that is under consideration. So whereas subsection (3) refers to amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying, an affirmative resolution is required only if the provision amends or repeals. If it revokes or otherwise modifies an Act of Parliament, the negative procedure is enough, according to this clause.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments, which are similar to those that I had the pleasure of moving in Committee. Since then, we have had a most interesting and informative letter— yet another Bourne letter, I may say; the collected correspondence of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is becoming voluminous—that is extraordinarily revealing. It appears that if we have bad habits, other Assemblies, including the Welsh Assembly, are now catching them. The letter tells us:
“In 2015 and 2016, eight out of the twelve Acts passed by the Assembly included a power for Welsh Ministers to make consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament”—
that is, our Parliament—
“without any role for Parliament to scrutinise such secondary legislation”.
It turns out that the Assembly is doing exactly what we are threatening to do. It is bringing in legislation, including Henry VIII powers, that will then be used to amend legislation, primary and secondary, that this House has passed. That is a constitutional absurdity and we have to put a stop to it at both ends.
In fact, not only has the Welsh Assembly taken these Henry VIII powers in eight of its 12 Acts, it has exercised them already. In three cases it has amended our primary legislation without our knowing or being consulted. I do not know who was asked. I ask the Minister to elaborate on this, because it is all in his letter. Another four pieces of secondary legislation have been made by the Assembly that amend SIs made by the UK Parliament. So there are three pieces of primary legislation and four secondary that have been amended by the Welsh Assembly, using their Henry VIII powers, without either this House or the other House knowing.
I have the privilege of serving on two committees of this House that spend a lot of time on secondary legislation, as well as the Joint Committee with the Commons. They are most impressive committees. An enormous amount of effort is taken and thorough, diligent work is done by the legal advisers and the members of the Committees. We pore over our draft statutory instruments and report if there is any special reason—if we need to draw attention to defective drafting, in the case of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, or to vires issues or broader issues in the case of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
I am astonished that we spend all this time making sure that we bring to this House statutory instruments that are fit for purpose, yet I now find that another Assembly—the Welsh Assembly—has amended the statutory instruments that we have so carefully prepared. I do not know how it has amended them; I do not know the nature of the amendment—I will press the Minister to explain in a minute—but this is the sort of situation that we get into. It is a sort of inter-ministerial legislative stitch-up: “You can amend it in your legislation —it is sufficient, it saves time and it is convenient”. Neither House should be interested in ministerial convenience. It is our job to be inconvenient at times, and I believe we should be in this case.
Will the Minister now tell us, based on the letter he has sent us, which sections of which Acts of Parliament—primary legislation—the Assembly has amended? I do not have a clue; none of our committees seems to have found out about it. Secondly, which statutory instruments have been amended by the National Assembly and which paragraphs of our statutory instruments have been changed? We have to put a stop to this; we have to put our foot down. I will read the last paragraph of the letter:
“There was no requirement for Parliament to scrutinise any of this legislation”.
It appears that Parliament was not party to any of this legislation, only Ministers. That is not true. Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments belong to this Parliament as much as they belong to Ministers; they are as much our constitutional property as they are that of Ministers. We need to put our foot down and find ways and means to ensure that this will not happen again. It is now happening to us, as we threatened to do it to National Assembly legislation. Let us put a stop to it, please.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the submissions made by everyone who has spoken on this matter. If I may say so, my heart swelled with pride at the wholly magisterial and superb condemnation of the situation by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.
This provision has no place in the mores or principles of the 21st century. It is a remnant of a monarchical diktat. Although it does not seem to have been abused by government at all in recent years, but used only for something utterly mechanical, it is still the letter of the law—a law that, I submit, is indefensible. I hope the Minister will not seek to defend the indefensible when he replies.
In Committee, I cited a book written by a former Attorney-General, Sir Gordon Hewart, in the late 1930s, entitled The New Despotism. He was worried about the powers being exercised daily by Ministers in such a way as to circumvent Parliament. He was not dealing with this problem but with positive powers allowing Ministers to make regulations in a wide field. What he would have said of this, I just do not know. It is an anachronism that we must get rid of, because it has no place whatever in the fundamental basis of our parliamentary system in the 21st century.
My name is down to Amendment 68, which covers this situation and goes a little further. It deals not just with the Cardiff Assembly but Westminster. I appreciate there is a distinction between them, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, but I thought it proper to include both for this reason. Most of the legislation that affects Wales and creates devolutionary powers for Wales does not come from Cardiff—it comes from here. For that reason, I should have thought it entirely proper to include it in the condemnation, which should be regarded as utter and absolute, of these Henry VIII powers.
I therefore ask the Minister to say yes. It may well be that there is no abuse of these powers and that no modern Government would dream of abusing them, but that is the letter of the law. It is a dangerous law and one that has no place in our day. Let us get rid of it as soon as possible.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to Henry V as a Welshman; indeed, he was a Monmouthshire man like myself. Of course, Henry VIII was a Welshman too, and he was less benign to Wales than the other Henry, just as the situation described by noble Lords is not benign.
Over the past 20 years, the way in which legislation has been made in Wales has developed enormously. When it started in the late 1990s, the Welsh Assembly was effectively a big county council, and all it could legislate on initially was secondary legislation. Then my noble friend Lord Hain introduced the 2006 Wales Act, under which we had a sort of hybrid situation with legislative competence orders. Now, as the House knows, primary legislation can be, will be and is being made by the National Assembly for Wales. Those of us who live in Wales are subject to the laws of two parliaments and the diktats of two sets of Ministers.
Over the past two decades, the relationships between the two Governments and the two parliaments have themselves developed. At times, it has been very difficult, as my noble friend Lord Hain and I as Welsh Secretaries knew only too well. But now my noble friend Lord Rowlands has revealed—and the Minister himself revealed it in his letter to Members of this House—that a deeply unpleasant and unconstitutional situation is growing that allows Ministers in one Government to change the laws of another assembly or parliament. That is very wrong.
I rather suspect that the Minister will say that these amendments should not appear in the Bill for various reasons—not least of which is “It doesn’t happen in Scotland”, but that was a major oversight when the Scotland Bill was going through. In previous constitutional Bills, very often a Minister has indicated in the House what the consultation process can be. If the Minister cannot assure us that such provisions will appear in the Bill, perhaps he can reassure the House that there will be proper consultation between the two Governments and the two assemblies and parliaments, whenever the changes are made. That is not as good as putting changes in the Bill, but at least it would be something.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, we have heard how Clause 60 allows for consequential provisions on Assembly Acts to be made by the UK Secretary of State. In other words, if there is a need for a tweak to be made to a new law introduced, or if there is a need to change a different government Bill as a result of the introduction of a new Bill, it could be done without going through the whole rigmarole of a full-on legislative parliamentary procedure.
We can all see the sense that now and again that is necessary. That is not an unusual state of affairs; it is not unusual for a Minister to be able to make consequential orders in relation to laws made and enacted in the United Kingdom. However, as we have heard, if a consequential law were to be introduced in Westminster, there would be that opportunity for both Houses to approve such changes before they could be enacted. If I may say so, I think that this House carries out that role very well; it is the House that really takes that seriously. As has been underlined, the major difference in relation to Wales is that the opportunity to approve consequential changes is not available to the Welsh Assembly on laws that affect it. That has been criticised vehemently by the Delegated Powers Committee.
My amendments would limit a requirement that statutory instruments would have to be approved by the Assembly so that it applied only if they related to provisions that would be within the Assembly’s competence or would amend the Government of Wales Act 2006. So it is a restricted responsibility. The Assembly would not be trying to grab power in any way—it is just making sure that the Assembly is able to do the work that it has responsibility for.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate on the amendments in this group relating to Clause 60. First, I understand the points made on the powers that are being brought in, specifically in relation to legislation that is having an effect beyond the particular legislature. Secondly, as a general point, I am grateful for the acknowledgement of the reams of letters that noble Lords are receiving, but I fear that probably more attention is being paid to the letters than to the debates, because the situation as regards the Assembly’s power was something that I made great play of in Committee. So the letter was not saying anything new—I mentioned this issue in Committee, so that particular point should not have taken noble Lords by surprise, as it appears to have done.
Lord Rowlands
But the Minister was not capable of telling us that, in fact, the Assembly had actually exercised these powers and actually had amended primary legislation and statutory instruments. He was not able to tell us that in Committee.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am grateful to the noble Lord—indeed, I did go further in the letter, that is true. There would have been little point in sending it otherwise. But I was underlining the point that I thought that noble Lords were saying that I had not mentioned this in Committee, which I had.
On the situation, I can say this—and I hope that it will meet with general approval—and pick up particularly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I am very grateful for his wise words in developing some way forward in relation to this matter. I have spoken to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has written to the First Minister and the Presiding Officer—I think significantly—in the National Assembly, to give two assurances. First, any intention to exercise the power in Clause 60 in respect of legislation made by either the Assembly or Welsh Ministers would be discussed between officials well in advance of regulations being laid. I think that this is common practice in any respect and, in relation to the particular point made about elections, this is something that is already happening. I think that sometimes noble Lords do not realise the good will that exists between officials, and indeed between the Administrations, in taking things forward.
Secondly, the Secretary of State will write to the First Minister and Presiding Officer, informing them of any intention to make regulations which affect legislation made by the Assembly or Welsh Ministers and to do so at the earliest stage before regulations are laid. It will then be for the National Assembly to act as it considers appropriate in relation to that information. I will be urging my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to seek some assurance that the Welsh Government will act in the same way in relation to matters that are decided at the Assembly which affect our legislation. It seems to me that this is only fair and deals with the issue that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was referring to in reverse. I do not think that, in essence, there is any difference between the two practices.
I hope that this will give the reassurance that is being sought in relation to the practice. I recognise the points that are being made and I think that this deals with them in that it alerts people at the earliest reasonable opportunity. I thank noble Lords for contributing to the debate. I understand the points that are being made but, in relation to that undertaking of some institutional underpinning at National Assembly level, I hope that noble Lords would accept these assurances and not press their amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for the suggestion that there will effectively be some kind of early warning system. But he suggested that it would allow the Assembly to act appropriately. What does he mean by that? What would the Assembly acting appropriately mean?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am too old a hand at devolution to suggest what would be appropriate for the Assembly; that would be a matter for the Assembly in the particular circumstances of the case. I do not think that I can second-guess what it would want to do; it would depend very much on the circumstances and the view of the Assembly on a particular matter, not to me as Minister at the Wales Office here.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
What tools are available for the Assembly to use in order to act appropriately? What tools does it have?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Again, the noble Baroness is a Member of the National Assembly; I am not. I would expect her to have a better idea of that than I do.
Lord Rowlands
Could they possibly be subject to legislative consent Motions, for example?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making, and indeed the point that the noble Baroness is making, but I suspect that this would be part of the response of the Presiding Officer to the Secretary of State now that she has the letter—or hopefully has the letter, because it has only just been sent. That would be a matter for dialogue between the Presiding Officer, First Minister and Secretary of State.
Lord Wigley
Before the Minister sits down, can he address one point that I raised with him? If the matters under consideration for the use of these orders are generally small, consequential, almost trivial sortings-out, why on earth is it not possible to have a consent order in the Assembly for any orders being made here and vice versa, so that everybody is built in? If they are not controversial there would be no difficulty in getting them.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, again, I do not want to second-guess what will happen in the discussion subsequent to the letter being received. It is a fair point, but I suppose it does raise the question of when something may be minor to one person but not another. I think that it may be easy to identify but more difficult to define what is minor. I take the point but, sometimes, there may be a need to act with great facility. The point here is that the approach that I have suggested—indeed, the approach that we are carrying forward—involves a dialogue between the National Assembly and our own Parliament, through the Wales Office, which can hopefully drive this matter forward. That is what I have been seeking to do and I hope that noble Lords will accept this as a way forward in relation to what could otherwise be a difficult issue.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I think that the proposals that he has put forward are politically very wise but, legally—and I mean this with no discourtesy —they are completely irrelevant. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.